Management Plan
Published by Historic Royal Palaces
© Historic Royal Palaces 2007
June 2007
Foreword
By David Lammy MP
Minister for Culture
I am delighted to support this Management Plan for the Tower of London World Heritage Site.
The Tower of London, founded by William the Conqueror in 1066-7, is one of the world’s most
famous fortresses, and Britain’s most visited heritage site. It was built to protect and control the
city and the White Tower survives largely intact from the Norman period. Architecture of
almost all styles that have since flourished in England may be found within the walls. The Tower
has been a fortress, a palace and a prison, and has housed the Royal Mint, the Public Records
and the Royal Observatory. It was for centuries the arsenal for small arms, the predecessor of
the present Royal Armouries, and has from early times guarded the Crown Jewels.
Today the Tower is the key to British history for visitors who come every year from all over the
world to relive the past and to enjoy the pageantry of the present. It is deservedly a World
Heritage Site.
The Government is accountable to UNESCO and the wider international community for the
future conservation and presentation of the Tower. It is a responsibility we take seriously.
The purpose of the Plan is to provide an agreed framework for long-term decision-making on
the conservation and improvement of the Tower and sustaining its outstanding universal value.
The Plan is the result of extended consultation between Historic Royal Places, as the
organisation with responsibility for the site, and those who are responsible for, and have a
special interest in, its place in the city of London.
I am extremely grateful to the many bodies and individuals who have worked so hard to
produce this Plan, in particular members of the Tower of London World Heritage Site
Consultative Committee. I am sure that the Plan will be extremely valuable in managing the site
and its setting, and in ensuring that the Tower’s special qualities are sustained and protected for
future generations to enjoy.
Foreword
By John Barnes
Conservation & Learning Director, Historic Royal Palaces
Historic Royal Palaces is proud to be responsible for the care, conservation and presentation to
the public of the Tower of London. An independent charity that receives no public funding, we
look after five of the nation’s most important sites: Hampton Court Palace, Kensington Palace,
Kew Palace, the Banqueting House in Whitehall and, of course, the Tower. Our work is guided
by a central Cause; to help everyone explore the story of how monarchs and people have
shaped society in some of the greatest palaces ever built.
The Tower of London World Heritage Site Management Plan was first put together in 2000 with
the guidance of a Consultative Committee of experts and policy makers, to whom we are
indebted. The Plan was widely consulted on but not finalised, because the swift change in
development activity in the vicinity of the Tower highlighted the need for a review of the
mechanisms to protect its setting. The publication of the London Plan spatial development
strategy and subsequent supplementary guidance has provided an opportunity to strengthen
the protection given to World Heritage Sites in London. The Management Plan has, therefore,
been extensively updated to reflect the passage of time, the evolving planning policy
framework and the greater emphasis on the setting of the Tower.
This management plan brings together knowledge, expertise and enthusiasm for sustaining the
outstanding universal value of the Tower from those with an interest in, and responsibility for,
the Tower and its environs.
Managing the Tower and its place in a dynamic World City is challenging. The Plan recognises
this, and looks to address the issues and challenges, while creatively utilising the enormous
opportunities that the Tower offers. The Plan provides a framework for long-term decision-
making on the conservation and improvement of the Tower and I fully expect that it will provide
a positive means of sustaining its outstanding universal value into the future.
Contents
Executive summary 3
1.0 Introduction 6
1.1 World Heritage and the World Heritage Convention
1.2 The UK and the World Heritage Convention
1.3 The Tower of London World Heritage Site
Management Plan - background
1.4 The Tower of London World Heritage Site
Management Plan - today
1.5 The main aims of the Management Plan
1.6 The structure of the Management Plan
1.7 The planning status of the Management Plan
Bibliography I
Appendices i
Appendix A Prior public consultation processes
Appendix B About Historic Royal Palaces
Appendix C Text of the Justification for Inscription contained in
the State Party’s Nomination Dossier and copy of
ICOMOS evaluation
Appendix D Criteria for the assessment of outstanding universal
value
Appendix E Scheduled Monuments and Listed Structures within
the World Heritage Site
Appendix F The interpretation programme at the Tower
2
Executive summary
3
Executive summary
HM Royal Palace and Fortress of the Tower of London (the Tower) is one of
England’s most evocative ancient monuments. There is a tangible sense of
history in every tower and around every corner, making it an endlessly
fascinating place for visitors from all round the world. The buildings and layout
that we see today stand as the culmination of a sequence which started
around 1067, and have developed dynamically ever since in line with the
changing needs of the site’s occupants, users and visitors.
The Tower was inscribed onto the World Heritage List in 1988. Inscribed
under two of the required criteria for inscription, the justification was:
Criterion (ii):
A monument symbolic of royal power since the time of William the Conqueror,
the Tower of London served as an outstanding model throughout the
kingdom from the end of the 11th century. Like it, many keeps were built in
stone, e.g. Colchester, Rochester, Hedingham, Norwich or Carisbrooke Castle
on the Isle of Wight.
Criterion (iv):
The White Tower is the example par excellence of the royal Norman castle in
the late 11th century. The ensemble of the Tower of London is a major
reference for the history of medieval military architecture.
The vision for the Tower of London World Heritage Site is to sustain its
outstanding universal value and to effectively manage the Tower in order to
protect, conserve and present it to the public and to transmit it to future
generations.
The purpose of the Tower of London World Heritage Site Management Plan is
to ensure the effective management of the WHS for present and future
generations and to provide an agreed framework for long-term decision-
making on the conservation and improvement of the Tower. The Tower
benefits from unique characteristics that afford opportunities for its future
development. Conversely, these characteristics also raise complex issues that
affect the conservation and management of the site. The Plan seeks to utilise
4
The Plan sets out management objectives for the Tower, supported by
actions, which reflect the opportunities, challenges and issues.
Historic Royal Palaces is the lead body responsible for implementing the Plan,
in co-operation with its on-site and off-site partners. The Tower of London
World Heritage Site Consultative Committee, a group including on-site
partners, local authorities and heritage specialists, will provide a forum for
consulting on issues affecting the Tower and its environs. The Committee will
review progress on the objectives and assist in monitoring implementation of
the action plan every year. The entire Plan will be reviewed every five years.
5
Part A – Context to the Management Plan
6
1.0 Introduction
1.1.1 World Heritage is the designation for places that are of ‘outstanding
universal value’ (OUV) to humanity and, as such, have been inscribed on the
World Heritage List to be protected for future generations to appreciate and
enjoy.
1.1.2 The concept of World Heritage is at the core of the World Heritage
Convention, adopted by UNESCO in 1972. The Convention came into force in
1975 and established a World Heritage List as a means of identifying,
protecting, conserving and transmitting to future generations those parts of
the world’s natural and cultural heritage deemed to be of outstanding
universal value and the concern of the international community as a whole. By
ratifying the Convention, State Parties pledge to meet the provisions of the
Convention and safeguard World Heritage Sites (WHS) in their territories as
part of their agreed policy for protecting their national heritage.
1.1.3 In January 2007, there were 830 WHS in 138 countries worldwide, of
which 644 were cultural, 162 natural and 24 mixed properties.
1.1.4 The addition of a site or monument to the List does not in all countries
confer any additional national legal protection. However, it does ensure
significant international prestige. It also significantly raises the profile of the
site within its own country; by nominating a site or monument for inclusion on
the List, State Parties are explicitly stating their commitment to the World
Heritage Convention and the importance of the protection and conservation
of the monuments that make up that heritage and undertaking to protect.
1.1.5 The Convention and inscription of sites onto the List is overseen by the
World Heritage Committee. The Committee comprises representatives of 21 of
the countries that have ratified the Convention, each elected for up to six
years at a time. It is serviced by UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre in Paris. The
Centre also advises States Parties to the Convention on the preparation of site
nominations, organises technical assistance on request, and co-ordinates
7
1.1.6 The Centre and the Committee are advised by three international non-
governmental bodies: ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and
Sites) on cultural sites; IUCN (World Conservation Union) on natural sites and
ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and
Restoration of Cultural Property) which provides expert advice on training and
conservation of cultural sites. Once nominated by a State Party and registered
by the World Heritage Committee, a potential WHS is evaluated by either
ICOMOS and/or IUCN. The final decision is taken by the World Heritage
Committee.
1.1.8 Nomination Documents set out the case for OUV of the site, its
authenticity, integrity and significance. Management Plans (Plans) set out
how the site is to be managed in such a way as to protect, preserve and
enhance the OUV of the site, through identifying challenges and opportunities
and setting appropriate strategies, policies and action plans to address these.
1.2.1 The UK ratified the World Heritage Convention in 1984 and submitted its
first Tentative List in 1986. So far, 27 cultural and natural heritage sites in the
UK and its overseas territories have been inscribed on the World Heritage List.
1.2.3 Within the UK, WHS are not yet statutory designations, so no additional
planning controls arise directly from the WHS inscription. However, national
policy is to require regional and local planning authorities to recognise the
importance of WHS as a ‘key material consideration’ in their planning policies
and proposals and in exercising their development control functions (Planning
Policy Guidance Note 15, 1994). Plans provide a policy framework for guiding
and influencing current, planned or potential management initiatives at a
variety of scales and for different purposes. Achieving the Plan’s objectives
depends on all involved working effectively in partnership. Once agreed at
national level by English Heritage, who advises DCMS, Plans are submitted to
UNESCO World Heritage Centre and are then forwarded to ICOMOS for
review.
1.3.1 HM Royal Palace and Fortress of the Tower of London (the Tower) was
inscribed onto the World Heritage List in 1988 but the accompanying Plan was
prepared in draft in 1999-2000. At that time, the Tower of London World
Heritage Site Management Plan Consultative Committee (MPCC) was
responsible for steering the preparation of the Plan, and provided an
important forum for debating and agreeing the key issues and management
priorities to be addressed by the Plan. Membership of the MPCC signified the
commitment of those organisations and individuals to ensuring that the OUV
of the WHS was sustained and preserved for future generations.
1.4 The Tower of London World Heritage Site Management Plan - today
1.4.1 The current Plan blends the considerable body of existing information
prepared for the original Plan with learning from a significant amount of
subsequent development activity; particularly in relation to conservation and
care of the Tower’s built fabric and contents, interpretation of the Tower’s
stories, and the physical and intellectual accessibility of the Tower.
1.4.2 Two key sources in the original development of the Plan were the
‘Tower within the Moat’ and ‘Approaching the Tower’ Conservation Plans,
prepared in 1999. The conservation policy framework and principal elements
developed by these Conservation Plans have been incorporated into the Plan
to ensure continuity of approach, and provide an integrated management
framework for the WHS and its local and wider setting. The Conservation
Plans are available from the Conservation & Learning Department, Historic
Royal Palaces.
1.4.3 Historic Royal Palaces is responsible for the preparation of the Plan.
Implementation and monitoring of the Plan is the responsibility of Historic
Royal Palaces, in consultation with the Tower of London World Heritage Site
Consultative Committee.
1.5.1 The purpose of the Plan is to ensure the effective management of the
WHS for present and future generations and to provide an agreed framework
for long-term decision-making on the conservation and improvement of the
Tower. The Plan embraces the physical preservation of the Tower, protecting
and enhancing the visual and environmental character of its local setting,
providing a consideration of its wider setting and improving the
understanding and enjoyment of the Tower as a cultural resource. It contains
management objectives and a prioritised programme of action for the next
five years, when the Plan will be next reviewed.
1.5.2 The Plan has been prepared at a time when there is an active
development cycle affecting the setting of the Tower, and throughout
London. The state of the conservation and presentation to the public of the
10
1.6.1 The Plan is presented in three principal parts. Part A sets the context
for the Plan; introducing the concept of World Heritage, describing the site
and its development and setting out a statement of significance and
outstanding universal value for the site. Part B begins with a discussion of the
opportunities, challenges and issues facing the Tower. The vision for the
Tower, and the management objectives that support it, draw on the benefits
associated with the opportunities, and seek to respond to the challenges and
issues. Part C explains how the management objectives and supporting
actions will be implemented, monitored and reviewed, and sets out a
programme of action for the five year Plan period and beyond. Supporting
information is provided as Appendices to the Plan.
N51 30 29
W0 4 34
Country
England, within the United Kingdom.
City
London (London Borough of Tower Hamlets).
2.1.3 The construction of the Tower began in the 11th century. As first
planned, it lay within the earlier Roman city walls, but its subsequent
enlargement, particularly in the 13th century, carried its boundaries eastwards
beyond the walls. Nowadays, including the moat, it covers an area of 18
acres/7.3 hectares. The oldest and most important building is the Norman
keep, known as the White Tower. The Inner Ward is enclosed within a wall
containing 13 towers, the only surviving original entrance to it still in use being
that on the south side under the Bloody Tower. The Outer Ward is defended
by a second wall flanked by six towers on the river face, and by two semi-
circular bastions at the north-west and north-east corners. A moat, now dry,
encircles the whole, crossed at the south-western angle by a stone bridge,
formerly a drawbridge, leading to the Byward Tower from the Middle Tower.
The Tower was occasionally occupied as a palace by every king and queen
until James I. Throughout its history the Tower has also been used as the
principal place of confinement for important State prisoners, from Ranulf
Flambard in the early 12th century to Rudolf Hess in the 20th. A garrison was
latterly housed within the Waterloo Block, built while the Duke of Wellington
was Constable of the Tower, with accommodation for some 1,000 men.
2.1.4 Today, the Tower is an unoccupied royal palace open to the public at
stated times. It contains the Crown Jewels, the Royal Armouries, the
headquarters of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and other offices, as well as
accommodation for resident staff.
OS Licence 100020687. Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Historic Royal Palaces 2007.
2.1.6 Options for extending the WHS, particularly to embrace Tower Hill and
the Liberties of the Tower, and Tower Bridge, have been considered in
previous studies and during the initial preparation and subsequent review of
this Plan. It is considered that, with Tower Hill being directly managed by
Historic Royal Palaces and Tower Bridge being in public ownership, and given
the scope of statutory protection, there would be no practical benefit in
extending the boundary. Therefore, no extension is proposed, but the
boundary should be kept under review as part of the ongoing monitoring of
the Plan.
14
2.2.2 The assets making up the Tower have been investigated and
considered individually. In addition to the built environment, tree planting and
gardening have been recorded at the Tower from the mid-13th century until
the present day, and this synopsis also refers to major developments in
landscaping.
15
Prehistory
2.2.3 Limited evidence for the use of the site during the prehistoric period
has been discovered during 20th-century excavations. Excavations in the
Inmost Ward in 1955 and 1976 discovered prehistoric pottery shards and flint
flakes, and the remains of a human male burial dating to the Iron Age was
discovered close to the Lanthorn Tower during an excavation in 1976. No firm
evidence of a major settlement as a precursor to the Roman City of London
has been discovered, however, and the likelihood is of a settled but rural
landscape prior to the first century AD which is evidenced from archaeological
excavations in the City of London and its environs.
eastern and southern limits of the fortress until the 13th century. These
riverside walls were added in the second half of the third century, and it is
likely that they were built as a response to the threat of a seaborne attack.
Excavations in the 1970s discovered that the earliest Roman walls on the site
were supported by oak piles, and tree ring-dating techniques have suggested
that the walls were constructed between AD 255-70. It was around this time
that the threat of Saxon seaborne attack was acute, during the 14-year
separation from the control of the Roman authorities after the usurpation of
Postumus in 259. The Lanthorn, Wakefield and Bell Towers may be sited on
the remnants of Roman bastions along the riverside wall. The archaeological
remains of surviving Roman features within the Tower form an important class
of asset of the site. The line of the eastern Roman wall is marked in the lawn
parallel to the east elevation of the White Tower, and corresponds with the
huge scheduled section of wall which still survives above ground on display
east of the exit from Tower Hill Underground Station. An element of riverside
Roman Wall [1] is exposed as part of the display at the Tower and dates to a
rebuilding phase in the late fourth century. Coins from the reign of Honorius
(395-410) were found during excavations near the Lanthorn Tower in 1777,
indicating that the Tower site remained in occupation up until the last years of
Imperial control.
focused around Queenhithe. The earliest evidence for settlement in this south-
east corner of the walled city is the foundation of pre-Norman churches and
the division of land into administrative areas. In the Second World War,
bombing on Tower Hill revealed a Saxon doorway arch, probably dating to the
eighth century, at the Church of All Hallows, Barking. It is thought probable
that the church of St Peter ad Vincula [2] was founded during the ninth
century.
2.2.7 The White Tower [3] was begun in the mid 1070s and completed c1100.
This magnificent stone keep would have towered over the surrounding
wooden constructions of the city, and no doubt added to the impression of
strength already created by the substantial remains of the Roman walls. Built
largely of limestone from Kent with Caen stone dressings shipped from
Normandy, the White Tower took about 30 years to complete. Towards the
end of the reign of William Rufus, the Conqueror’s son, it was finished well
enough to hold the imprisoned Bishop of Durham, Ranulf Flambard, in 1101.
This is the first well known episode of the Tower having been used as a prison
for important offenders against the State. Tree ring-dating of wooden features
within the White Tower tell us that building was well underway in the 1080s,
18
2.2.9 The fortress was expanded to the west during the reign of Richard I,
under the direction of his chief minister William Longchamp, Bishop of Ely.
Richard himself spent most of his reign fighting in the Holy Land, leaving his
minister to manage affairs at home. The accounts of 1190 show major
expenditure for building works during Longchamp’s time as Constable, and
the polygonal shape of the magnificent Bell Tower [5] suggests that it was
built by 1200. Comparisons with similar towers at Dover, Corfe and
Framlingham castles support this date. The Bell Tower was part of the newly
defined south-west corner of the fortress, and connected with a new riverside
curtain wall, which linked with the defended enclosure of the Inmost Ward. A
surviving length of this new wall now stands as the Inner Curtain [6] between
the Bloody and Bell Towers. A new length of moat was excavated around this
western expansion, with the main gateway on the site of the later Beauchamp
Tower. A contemporary chronicler, Roger of Howden, states that Longchamp
“caused the Tower of London to be surrounded by a moat of great depth”,
although a 13th-century chronicler, Matthew Paris, noted that the Thames had
failed to flood the moat. Longchamp’s incomplete defences were soon to be
tested, as the King’s brother John attacked the Tower in 1191. The defences
held, but Longchamp was forced to surrender for lack of supplies. John
became King in 1199, and stayed often at the Tower.
20
2.2.11 The second major works programme, underway by 1240, saw the
expansion of the castle beyond the boundaries of the Roman wall, to the north
and east, and the refortification along these expanded lines. The expansion
brought the church of St Peter ad Vincula and its graveyard into the castle.
This phase of building was prompted by Henry’s flight to the Tower in 1238
during unrest provoked by his sister’s secret marriage to Simon de Montfort.
21
The existing defences were considered inadequate. It was also during this
refortification that the first recorded instance of the White Tower being
whitewashed took place. Some sections of the original walling from these
external defences now survive as the Inner Curtain Wall [12]. The wall was
reinforced by massive D-shaped towers including the Devereux Tower [13],
Flint Tower [14], Bowyer Tower, [15] Brick Tower [16], Martin Tower [17],
Constable Tower [18], Broad Arrow Tower [19] and Salt Tower [20]. A moat
was excavated on the external side of the wall, currently the Outer Ward. An
impressive entrance complex, probably consisting of an outwork turret, a
timber bridge and a great gatehouse, was built to face Tower Hill.
Unfortunately, it collapsed, possibly twice, during the latter stages of
construction. The exact cause of the building’s failure is unknown.
Archaeological excavations in the western moat in 1995 uncovered the
alarmingly sloping stone base and associated timbers of a building which
formed a forward defence in Henry III’s western entrance. Comparison of the
stonework with the shape of similar buildings at Dover and Kenilworth castles
suggested that the ‘forework’ had an elegant polygonal superstructure. The
great gateway itself must have been built into the curtain wall and stood
roughly on the site of the present Beauchamp Tower. Matthew Paris described
the collapse of this entrance as taking place in 1240, and described a prophecy
by St Thomas Becket (the patron saint of London) that the walls would
collapse once more, and it seems that indeed they did. This story reflects the
city’s mistrust of the King, and gives context to Henry’s reinforcement of his
massive fortress. Like his father, Henry had a troubled reign, and frequently
resorted to the Tower during his conflicts with powerful magnates, including
the rebellion led by his brother-in-law, Simon de Montfort in 1263. Again, the
Tower’s defences held firm, but the King had to submit due to the castle being
poorly provisioned.
2.2.12 In March 1262, Henry III gave instructions for planting ‘cailhou’ pear
trees in a walled enclosure outside the castle, but inside the city walls. This
orchard was known as ‘The King’s Garden’. It is likely that it lay on the north
side of the Tower moat on a property later to be known as the ‘Nine Gardens’,
which remained at least until the 16th century. Another royal garden, this time
within the castle walls, first appears in documents of 1266 with an order to buy
plants, and to repair a wall around ‘The King’s Garden in the Tower of London’.
It is most likely that this was located at the south-east corner of the castle, and
came to be known as ‘The Privy Garden’. It occupied a triangle between the
22
2.2.14 The expansion of the castle to the south had involved the reclamation
of land from the Thames leaving the previous riverside Wakefield Tower and
Bloody Tower water gate landlocked. This feat was achieved by masses of
23
beech wood piles being driven into the riverbed, supporting the Outer Ward
and Outer Curtain Wall. St Thomas’s Tower [30] was built from 1275 as the
replacement for the former river gate and to provide new royal
accommodation above in the form of a hall and chamber for the King’s
personal use, with a communicating bridge to Henry III’s Wakefield Tower.
This expansion provided additional accommodation within the fortress and it
is probably at this time that the Royal Mint was first established in the Outer
Ward.
2.2.15 The Beauchamp Tower [31] was constructed c1281 following the
collapse in 1240 and 1241 of the former main entrance of Henry III on the same
site. The lengths of Inner Curtain Wall around the tower were also rebuilt and
survive as material largely from this date. These constructions represent the
first major use of brick in the fortress, with brick used as a lining for the
archer’s embrasures and as the interior skin of the main rooms in the tower.
They also represent the first large scale use of brick in England since the
Roman period, with 243,000 being ordered between 1276 and 1278. Lastly,
the church of St Peter ad Vincula was completely rebuilt between 1286-7.
2.2.16 By ringing his father’s castle with an outer ward, curtain wall and a
moat, Edward had transformed the Tower into one of the most formidable
concentric castles in Europe. Responding to Gilbert de Clare’s castle at
Caerphilly, built in the late 1260s, the Tower was part of a group of innovative
and sophisticated castles built on Edward’s orders. His castles in North Wales,
built to secure the conquest of the Principality, form another WHS.
2.2.18 Due to the Tower‘s increased role as a military storehouse and supply
depot The Wharf [34] was constructed in three main stages c1276-1324, 1338
and 1389-91, with Tower Dock, infilled in the 1950s, at its west end. The South
Moat Revetment Wall [35] is formed by the northern side of the Wharf wall
25
and therefore partially dates from this period. The 1338 extension of the moat
anticipated the demand for supplying English forces abroad for the Hundred
Years War with France, which started in 1340. The building constructed
against the east face of the White Tower, possibly by Edward III during the
mid-14th century, may be related to the evolution of the Privy Wardrobe and
the use of the Tower as a military storehouse. This was demolished in the 19th
century.
2.2.20 During the Wars of the Roses, Edward IV (1461-83) extended the
western entrance defences by building an enormous brick Bulwark [36], which
now survives as an archaeological structure beneath the paving of southern
Tower Hill. It was probably in Edward IV’s reign that the wedge-shaped
Byward Tower Postern was rebuilt as the one which still survives today,
complete with very early examples of loopholes for small cannon and
handguns, responding to developments in the use of artillery in warfare.
During the dynastic struggle between the royal houses of York and Lancaster,
the Tower played host to the victory celebrations and probable murder of
Henry VI (1422-61), and the notorious disappearance of the incarcerated sons
of Edward IV, the ‘Little Princes’ in 1483, after the usurpation of the throne by
their uncle Richard III (1483-85.) This episode was immortalised by
Shakespeare, in his play ‘Richard III’.
26
2.2.22 Accounts from the 1530s demonstrate that a repair programme was
initiated in Henry VIII’s reign following a survey of the condition of the Tower.
Repairs were carried out to both Inner and Outer Curtain Walls and the mural
towers, the White Tower and St Thomas’s Tower. James Nedeham, Henry
VIII’s Master Carpenter, was awarded the contract for constructing the new
roof of St Thomas’s, built strongly enough for the deployment of cannon on its
surface. Much of these works took place prior to the Coronation of Anne
Boleyn, Henry’s second, and Protestant, Queen in June 1533. The Tower
needed extensive repair and redecoration to make it fit for a brief royal
residence, and most of the work focussed on the royal apartments, which now
no longer exist. They can however be seen on a survey dating from 1597,
carried out towards the end of Elizabeth I’s reign (1558-1603). Henry and Anne
stayed in the apartments before the Queen’s Coronation, and Anne created 18
Knights of the Bath in the Great Hall, after their vigil in the White Tower.
Following centuries of tradition, Anne then processed from the Tower to
Westminster Abbey, there to be crowned. The origins of this tradition are
uncertain, but it ended with Charles II (1660-85.) Ironically, years later, Anne
Boleyn, her cousin Catherine Howard, and her daughter the young Princess
Elizabeth (later Elizabeth I) were imprisoned in the royal apartments on
separate occasions. The church of St Peter ad Vincula was destroyed by fire
in 1512 and the present building was constructed as its replacement c1519-20.
27
Henry VIII and his first wife, Katherine of Aragon, attended services there and
processed from it. After their executions on Tower Green, the bodies of Henry
VIII’s wives Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard were buried there. The body
of the Protestant ‘Nine Day Queen’, Lady Jane Grey, is also interred there – a
victim of Henry’s daughter Mary Tudor’s (1553-58) determination to return the
nation to Catholicism. The Queen’s House [37] was built in 1540 incorporating
pieces of the former Constable’s Lodgings, and is the finest timber-framed
building to survive the Great Fire of London of 1666.
2.2.23 During the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth the
fortress gained importance as a military emplacement (with the increased use
of artillery – such as the placement of cannon on the roofs of major buildings),
armoury and arsenal and prison for “religio-political” prisoners. Many towers,
especially the Beauchamp and Salt Towers, have inscriptions carved into their
walls by prisoners, and are a permanent reminder of many of the illustrious
names who were incarcerated for their beliefs. After Anne Boleyn’s
Coronation, Henry VIII rarely if ever stayed at the Tower, preferring Hampton
Court and Whitehall Palaces. The same is true of his children, and while royal
residence became a thing of the past, the Tower’s role as a functional building
and a symbol of monarchical control gained strength.
2.2.25 The eastern edge of what is the current south lawn in front of the
White Tower was cut by the Tudor royal apartments, which, from the building
and repair campaign of the 1530s, stretched between the Lanthorn Tower and
the Wardrobe Tower. Tower Green proper probably started as a grassed area
and extended from St Peter ad Vincula as far as the Queen’s House, and all
along the north side of the inner ward of the castle. The building of the
Ordnance Storehouses defined the northern edge of what was to become the
modern day Parade Ground. In the 16th century the Old Main Guard (now
demolished) was built to the south-west of the “Execution Site” area. A walled
28
garden in the south-east part of Tower Green was known as the Lieutenant’s
Garden in the 16th century. It was overlooked by the Bloody Tower, which was
previously known as the Garden Tower.
2.2.27 After the Restoration, during the reign of Charles II, steps were taken
to improve the state of the Tower’s defences and military storage areas. In
1663 a royal warrant was issued for the construction of a new military
storehouse, the New Armouries Building [40], on the site of the Wardrobe
Garden. A fire corridor was cleared around the White Tower, at about time of
the Great Fire of London in 1666, following fears that the powder magazine
would ignite. During this clearance much of the medieval palace was
destroyed including Coldharbour Gate, the Jewel House on the south front
and parts of the royal lodgings on the eastern side of the Inmost Ward.
Extensive archaeological excavations took place in this location in the 1950s
29
and 1970s, revealing remains dating from amongst the earliest periods of
habitation of the site. Ordnance storage buildings then replaced the palace
south of the White Tower.
2.2.28 The Tower was used for a very brief time as the first Royal
Observatory when John Flamsteed was permitted to set up his telescope in
the north-east turret of the White Tower. The defences of the moat were
improved by Sir Bernard de Gomme in 1670-83, who built the North and West
Moat Revetment Wall [41] in brick. Finally, the Grand Storehouse
(subsequently burned down in 1841) was constructed, replacing Henry VIII’s
range of now ruinous stores in 1688-91.
2.2.29 In 1607 the Lieutenant of the Tower restored the ‘Nine Gardens’ on
the north side of the Tower moat with a brick wall and a Banqueting House at
the end of it. By 1620 the ditch surrounding it had been filled, and yards and
gardens clustered around it. A plan of the Tower made in 1681-2 shows that
the Privy Garden area had by then lost its function as royal pleasure garden
and was occupied by stables, storage areas, and gun platforms. The north-east
garden, in the Inner Ward, is only visible on a 1681-2 plan of the Tower, and no
longer exists. On Tower Green, the 17th-century New Main Guard was built to
the north-east of the Execution Site area. The walled Lieutenant’s Garden
remained for most of the 17th century, but was converted into part of a large
parade ground in 1685. The Upper and Lower Gardens, with associated walls,
occupied the remainder of Tower Green. The southern part of the gardens
formed a small orchard, and trees were gradually added from the late 17th
century.
2.2.31 Two fires in 1774 and 1788 destroyed the remaining medieval palace
buildings. Shortly after the fires the remains were demolished and replaced
with very substantial new offices for the Ordnance and storehouses. The
buildings lost at this point include the Great Hall, the Lanthorn Tower, the
Tudor gallery towards the Salt Tower and what remained of the southern Inner
Curtain Wall.
2.2.32 During the late 18th century the western arm of the Outer Ward – long
associated with the Royal Mint - was extensively rebuilt with the construction
of the current Casemates (1-3 Casemates , 4 Casemates, 4a-5 Casemates)
[45], now forming the sole surviving parts from the modernisation of the
Royal Mint.
2.2.33 A survey of 1726 shows a line of trees planted to the east of the White
Tower. On the whole, the 18th-century landscape continued along the lines of
the previous century.
2.2.35 In 1812 the Royal Mint moved out of the Tower, followed by the Royal
Menagerie from the 1830s onwards. The Ordnance and the Record Office left
the Tower during the 1850s. In 1841 the Tower suffered a large fire which did
much damage. It destroyed the Grand Storehouse completely. The site was
later built upon in 1845 by the Waterloo Block [46], originally a barracks for
over 1,000 men. Accommodation for officers was provided in the nearby and
contemporary Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (London) Museum [47]. Further
accommodation was provided in the brick single-storey structures 7-10
Casemates [48], constructed in 1853, with Salvin’s Casemates [49] in the
north-east and east arms of the Outer Ward, constructed c1856.
2.2.36 The two sets of 19th-century Casemates are the physical embodiment
of the changing philosophy towards the Tower and its evolution. The earlier
range was built in brick with classical references. The later, however, was the
direct result of a campaign led by the architect Anthony Salvin with support
from the Prince Consort to ‘re-medievalise’ the fortress. This campaign built
upon the Victorian fascination with the Tower’s gruesome reputation, and the
concurrent transformation of the fortress into a venue for mass tourism. The
Tower’s history inspired historical novelists such as W. Harrison Ainsworth,
and history painters such as Paul Delaroche, who revelled in the more
dramatic episodes in the castle’s past. Salvin’s first commission at the Tower
was the restoration in 1851-3 of the Beauchamp Tower, with its strong
associations with imprisonment. He was meticulous in his recreation of
Edward I’s great building. It was the success of this commission that led Prince
Albert to press for the continued restoration of the medieval appearance of
the Tower.
2.2.37 The 19th century saw the most dramatic period of restoration carried
out under the control of Salvin and his successor John Taylor. Much of the
earlier 17th- and 18th- century brick repairs and sash windows were replaced
by stone elements in the approved Gothic revival style. The majority of
buildings were subject to some degree of restoration. St Peter’s Church was
gutted of 17th- and 18th- century furniture and refloored. The Chapel of St
John the Evangelist’s windows in the White Tower were replaced by
Bathstone ‘romanesque’ versions. The Crown Jewels, a huge draw for tourists
since the 17th century, were removed from the Martin Tower to new displays
in the Wakefield Tower in 1870, and Salvin replaced the medieval floor with a
reinforced version to support the weight of the Jewels’ display.
32
2.2.38 The reduced importance of the defensive aspect of the Tower was
demonstrated with the draining of the moat in 1843 on the orders of the Duke
of Wellington, Constable of the Tower from 1826-52. However, due to fears of
Chartist riots the North Bastion (later destroyed) was constructed for
additional defence in 1848. Other reconstructions of the defences during this
period included the Flint Tower and Brick Tower, and adjacent lengths of the
Inner Curtain Wall. Many buildings were demolished in a general clearance of
the interior. These included various post-medieval structures but also older
buildings thought to be in poor condition. The eastern annexe of the White
Tower, thought to date to the reign of Edward III, was a most unfortunate loss,
though fragments of the Wardrobe Tower were saved. The adjacent Horse
Armoury was also removed. In an unpopular attempt to increase the
‘medieval’ character of the Tower, Taylor removed the 17th-century Ordnance
Offices and Record Office along the southern inner curtain wall, and replaced
them with a ‘Gothic’ inner ballium wall. Sadly, some of the medieval fabric was
lost along with the fine architecture of the 17th century. This was the subject
of a celebrated dispute with the newly created Society for the Protection of
Ancient Buildings, who protested that the authentic original buildings had
greater value than a recreated ‘medieval style’ new construction.
2.2.39 Between 1866 and 1869 8 Tower Green [50], designed by Salvin, was
constructed as a domestic building. Various new service buildings appeared,
including the Yeoman Warders’ Club [51] and the Cradle Tower Toilets [52],
and the Pump House [53] and Wharfinger’s Cottage [54] outside the Tower.
The major change to the Tower setting was the opening of Tower Bridge,
when the red brick and cast iron construction of Tower Bridge Approach
replaced the earlier East Moat Revetment Wall [55].
2.2.40 As the Tower’s defensive role declined in the 1840s, the area to the
north of de Gomme’s moat revetment wall was transformed into a quasi-
municipal formal garden. The current layout of Tower Green was created in
the 19th century and an avenue of trees was planted on the parade ground in
1857. In 1866, the area immediately to the south of the church of St Peter ad
Vincula was railed off and a granite and brass plaque was installed
commemorating the execution of Anne Boleyn. It has been known as the
‘Scaffold Site’ or ‘Execution Site’ ever since. By 1870 the whole of Tower Green
was covered in irregular cobblestones. The London Plane trees on the south
33
lawn and in the cobbled area to the north of the Lanthorn Tower were planted
in the 19th century, and still remain. In the late 19th century a group of trees
was planted at the eastern end of Water Lane and by 1800 two trees were
planted opposite the Wakefield Tower. The wharf was cleared of buildings in
1878 and Planes were planted when it was laid out as a public esplanade. Many
of these trees still remain.
2.2.42 Tourism came to dominate the Tower in the later 20th century. New
building has been on a minimal scale, with additions limited to structures such
as the Roman Wall Shop [56], Pass Office and Beauchamp Toilet Block. Areas
of the castle were altered for visitor displays. The philosophy of conservation
at the Tower also changed, with the massive expansion of archaeological
study, both above and below ground.
2.2.43 The five unoccupied royal palaces of the Tower of London, Hampton
Court Palace, the Banqueting House, Kensington Palace and Kew Palace have
been the responsibility of government since the 18th century. Historic Royal
Palaces was established in 1989 as an Executive Agency of Government within
the Department of the Environment, and the five palaces were brought
together and run by this one agency. Later, Historic Royal Palaces was
transferred to the Department of National Heritage on its establishment in
1995, now named the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. On 1st April
1998, by Royal Charter, Historic Royal Palaces became an independent charity.
34
2.3.1 The land on which the Tower was built was appropriated from the City
by the Crown, and with it a more extensive area which, initially for defensive
reasons, separated the urban area from the successive moat lines which
enclosed the royal fortress itself. This open area became known as the
‘Liberties’, since it was free from the City’s jurisdiction. Despite some ebb and
flow over time, the Liberties continue to separate the fortress from the
buildings of the modern city on the north bank of the Thames, just as the river
itself does on the south. The formal definition of the Liberties in 1382 was
probably to stem encroachment. By that time the City and its eastern suburb
were probably already densely built up to the boundary of the Liberties, and
the Tower faced a developed river frontage on the Southwark bank.
35
Image reproduced from the Corporation of London Pool of London Partnership Tower Gateway Development Framework and Investment
Strategy, Draft Planning and Design Guidance December 2003.
2.3.2 The environs of the Tower started to change noticeably during the late
17th and 18th centuries, with the re-building of the City after the Great Fire of
London (1666) and its rapid expansion as the major trading centre and port of
the growing British Empire. Notable new skyline features in the setting of the
Tower included the Monument, St. Paul’s Cathedral and numerous Wren
church towers, all but the Monument replacing medieval buildings. However,
post-fire secular building down to the 18th century was still largely domestic in
scale, as historic panoramas of the City show. No. 42 Trinity Square, just north
of the Tower, provides a surviving example, and the adjacent 41 shows how
the scale tended to grow in the early 19th century, within the same 4-storey
formula.
2.3.4 The start of the changing relationship between the mass and bulk of
the Tower and that of the cityscape buildings addressing it dates from the
1820s, with the construction (to the east) of St Katharine’s Dock, flanked by 5-
6 storey brick warehouses. Fenchurch Street Station was built to the north in
1841, and a new east-west road cut through to the north of the Tower in 1882-
4, followed by Tower Bridge in 1886-94, all prompting commercial
development on an increasing scale. The development of the Southwark bank
of the Thames, largely with warehouses, happened in parallel. The
monumental Port of London Authority building of 1912-22, prominent in the
northern setting of the Tower, marked both the high point and the culmination
of this Imperial phase.
2.3.5 Bomb damage in the Second World War prompted ideas of radical re-
planning in the City. The road north of the Tower was further widened and
realigned as part of a proposed ‘ring road’, of which only the southern section
was realised. Much of the area to the north and west of the Tower was
redeveloped from the late 1950s for primarily office uses, in accordance with a
‘master plan’. These buildings are in turn being replaced, generally by taller
blocks of larger scale, as modern highly-serviced offices necessitate greater
storey heights. On the Southwark bank, wharves and warehouses have also
given way mostly to offices, with some historic buildings being retained and
converted. More London (in progress) is the largest development, again to a
‘master plan’ which has created a new pattern of pedestrian circulation at
street level.
2.3.6 Demand for office floorspace in the environs of the Tower has
continued to grow during the late 20th and early 21st centuries, as the City has
strengthened its position as the world’s leading international financial and
business centre.
37
2.4.2 Views from the Inner Ward, over and between its enclosing buildings
and walls, illustrate the relationship of the Tower to the evolving, but primarily
20th-century, cityscape beyond. Particularly from the northern parts of the
Inner Ward, there are extensive prospects over the Thames to the south bank.
The modern, mostly commercial, buildings of the north bank are, by contrast,
seen primarily in framed views between or over the buildings defining the
Inner Ward.
2.4.4 The moat, laid to grass in the mid-19th century, houses some recreation
facilities for the Tower’s resident community, as well as providing a venue for
occasional public events like the summer Music Festival and winter skating
rink. The public gardens to the north-east of the moat, within the WHS, are
regularly re-planted and maintained by Historic Royal Palaces.
follow.
2.4.7 The local setting of the Tower comprises the spaces from which it can
be seen from street and river level, and the buildings that provide definition to
those spaces. This forms an ‘arena’, defined in brown on Figure 5 below,
whose boundary is heavily influenced by views across the Thames.
2.4.8 The immediate setting of the Tower is that part of the local setting that
is on the north bank of the Thames (as illustrated in the London View
Management Framework, Management Plan 25 Townscape View: City Hall to
Tower of London).
2.4.9 The wider setting comprises buildings and areas beyond the local
setting that are inter-visible with the Tower.
39
2.4.11 In the opposite direction, Lower Thames Street frames the visual link
with the Monument. Both these streets, and Cooper’s Row to the north (3) and
Mansell Street (4), provide medium to long distance, framed views of parts of
40
the Tower.
2.4.12 The character of the Liberties, the open space around the Tower,
began to change in the 1880s, with the construction of the new main roads
along the north and east sides of the moat, the latter being the elevated
northern approach to Tower Bridge. The A100, as further ‘improved’ in the
mid-20th century to a heavily-engineered four lane road across the north side
of the moat, visually dominates the area to the north of the Tower and forms a
barrier to easy movement to and from the city beyond. To the west of the
Tower, Tower Hill has been repaved as a major public space, and is now
managed with the Tower. Trinity Square, which includes the now redundant
scaffold site, provides a contrast; a public garden of considerable amenity
41
value. The area immediately to the south of Tower Hill Underground Station
includes an elevated viewing platform overlooking the Tower.
2.4.13 The interface between the Liberties and the city, facing the Tower,
became a favoured location for institutional buildings (see figure 7 above).
The Royal Mint moved out of the Tower to a new building - now offices - to
the north-east in 1810. The Corporation of Trinity House, responsible for the
nation’s sea lights, has its headquarters [6] to the north of the Tower. The
imposing Port of London Authority Building [5], now offices, stands to the
north-west, while on Trinity Square in front is the Merchant Navy War
Memorial, near the Scaffold site. They are complemented by the surviving
Edwardian commercial buildings in Byward Street [4], opposite All Hallows
Church [3]. Otherwise the space is defined by commercial buildings, mostly
erected in the second half of the 20th century [7-10], differing greatly in form,
scale and materials. Two of these have recently been re-developed: Tower
Place [2] by Foster + Partners, and Tower Bridge House [15] by The Richard
Rogers Partnership.
2.4.14 The eastern aspect of the local setting is dominated by Tower Bridge
and its approach [19], with International House, a late 20th-century office
building [16], separating it from St Katherine’s Dock. The south bank of the
Thames was, until the late 20th century, lined with wharves and warehouses.
Some of these, now converted to other uses, [25, 27] survive in the Pool of
London as reminders of the historic port which the Tower controlled for the
Crown, as does Butler’s Wharf [20] to the east of the Bridge.
2.4.15 The change of use of the southern river frontage facilitated the
creation of a wide pedestrian riverside walk, Queen’s Walk, along the south
bank. Alongside it is City Hall [22], the seat of London government, addressing
a paved public space on which pedestrian routes between commercial
buildings [23] converge. This development, ‘More London’ by Foster +
Partners, is nearing completion. To the east is Potters Field Park. Planning
permission was granted in February 2006, following a public inquiry, for the
development of the site to the south-east of the park [21] with eight oval,
glass-clad residential towers designed by Ian Ritchie Architects. To the west is
Southwark Crown Court [24]. The local setting extends westwards as far as
the southern part of London Bridge.
43
2.4.17 Over half of the visitors to the Tower arrive at Tower Hill Underground
Station 1, and gain their first glimpse of the Tower from there or the adjacent
Wakefield Garden viewing platform. To reach the Tower, they (and visitors
arriving via Tower Gateway and Fenchurch Street) are confronted by a steep
stair down to an oppressively low subway under the A100 dual carriageway,
which forms a barrier between the Tower and the city beyond. An alternative
1
Historic Royal Palaces’ visitor research conducted summer 2006.
44
2.4.18 The local setting provides serial views of the Tower, revealing different
aspects of its character and its relationship with the surrounding urban
landscape. The Queen’s Walk along the south bank, provides an outstanding
serial view of the Tower in relation to the modern City of London from a quiet,
pedestrian environment. A viewpoint immediately outside City Hall provides a
panorama of the whole medieval fortress, centred on a diagonal view of the
White Tower against a backdrop of clear sky. This is identified in the London
Plan as a strategically important London view (p185). Continuing northwards
over Tower Bridge on the west pavement, the commercial centre of the City
of London appears in the background. From the north-east, the Tower
presents very much the character of an early modern artillery fortress, low and
massive, not least because of the continuously elevated viewpoint provided
by the northern approach to Tower Bridge. In contrast to Queen’s Walk and
Tower Hill, however, the public realm on the east and north is dominated by
the noise and pollution of heavy traffic.
2.4.19 Buildings forming the boundary of the local setting of the Tower
influence experience of the Tower in two ways. First, they define the sequence
of spaces which form that local setting, and so their quality contributes to
perceptions of the quality of those spaces. Second, they form the immediate
backdrop to the Tower (unless wholly obscured by it) in views of the WHS
across the local setting, and are often seen at close quarters in views out from
it, notably from the Inner Ward.
2.4.22 The wider setting of the WHS comprises a mix of historic and modern
commercial buildings, ranging up to about 10 storeys (30-40m) high with
residential and commercial buildings of varying heights predominating to the
north east. Since the 1960s, tall (mostly more than c200m high) commercial
buildings, particularly in the City of London, have become increasingly
characteristic of parts of the wider setting of the Tower. There is strong
interest, sustained over the past decade, in expanding both the number and
the location of such buildings, which are perceived as contributing to
London’s skyline and image as a dynamic ‘World City’ as well as to its
economy.
2.4.23 To the north-west of the Tower stands the City of London’s growing
‘eastern cluster’ of tall buildings, signifying its financial centre. Its visibility
expresses the evolving political and cultural relationship between Tower and
the trading centre of the City of London. This cluster forms the background to
views of the Tower of London from the east, and the upper parts of these
buildings are visible in views between and over buildings in the Inner Ward.
Looking east, particularly from London Bridge, the cluster of tall buildings at
Canary Wharf can be seen in the distant background of the Tower. To the
south-west, there is a group of tall buildings around Guy’s Hospital and
London Bridge Station, where a 306m high landmark building designed by
Renzo Piano, known as the ‘shard of glass’, is expected to replace one of the
existing blocks.
2.5.3 The planning policy framework is hierarchical, with strategic policy set
nationally, applied regionally, and now implemented largely through the Local
Development Frameworks of local planning authorities. National planning
policy is set out in the government’s Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs),
increasingly replaced by Planning Policy Statements (PPSs). These set out
policy on key issues and provide guidance to planning authorities in the
preparation of their spatial plans. PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development
(2005) sets out general objectives, and of general relevance to the Tower are
government policies on regional planning guidance (GOL Circular 1/2000
Strategic Planning in London); Local Development Frameworks (PPS12, 2004)
and transport (PPG13, 2001). National planning policy for the protection of
statutorily-designated heritage sites is well established through Planning
Policy Guidance Notes 15: Planning and the Historic Environment, and 16:
Archaeology and Planning. 'PPG 16 establishes a policy presumption in favour
of the preservation of scheduled monuments, and a presumption against
proposals which would have a significant impact on their setting (paras 8, 27).
PPG 15 establishes a policy presumption in favour of the preservation of listed
47
buildings (para 3.3) and refers to the legal duty of local planning authorities to
'have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its
setting' [Planning (Listed buildings and conservation areas) Act 1990,
sections 16(2) & 66(1)]' as well as the need to 'protect [a WHS] site and
its setting from damaging development' (para 6.37).
2.5.4 National policies are applied and interpreted at the regional level by
the Mayor of London through the London Plan, and at the local level by local
planning authorities, in Local Development Frameworks which are being
introduced to supersede Unitary Development Plans. The Tower is in the
London Borough of Tower Hamlets, but the adjacent authorities, namely
Southwark and the City of London, manage much of its setting. Applications
for ‘planning permission’ must be determined by local authorities in
accordance with the prevailing development plan or framework, ‘unless
material considerations indicate otherwise’. Applications can be referred to the
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by objectors or
where it is proposed to grant permission contrary to established policy. In
both cases the proposal must be considered, and may be referred, to the
Secretary of State to give him or her an opportunity to ‘call in’ the application
and decide the case. By convention, this is always done following a public
inquiry, convened by an independent Planning Inspector, appointed by the
Secretary of State. The Planning Inspectorate also deal with appeals against
refusal of planning permission, listed building consent and scheduled
monument consent, and many decisions (but not those on call-in) are
delegated to Inspectors.
site.’
2.5.14 The White Paper, Heritage Protection for the 21st Century, sets out the
government’s proposals to ‘clarify and strengthen protections for World
Heritage Sites’ 2; in particular to introduce specific notification and call-in
requirements for significant development affecting WHS , and to update
planning policy to strengthen the consideration of WHS within the planning
system. The government also proposes to withdraw some rights to undertake
‘permitted development’ (minor ‘development’ for which a general consent
has been granted), putting WHS on a par with National Parks.
2
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2007) Heritage Protection for the 21st Century , p8.
51
2.5.19 Conservation Area Appraisals (CAA) are required for each CA. These
describe the architectural and historic character and significance of each area,
and provide guidance to all concerned with development and change in the
area on how the character can be preserved and enhanced. A list of the CAs
in the vicinity of the Tower and the status of the respective CAA is provided in
the table below.
53
status
prepared.
prepared.
developed in collaboration
Southwark
Southwark
Southwark
Southwark
Southwark
Southwark
2.5.22 Policy 4B.13 states that: ‘The Mayor will work with the relevant
boroughs, English Heritage and site owners and occupiers to agree and to
implement management plans for London’s World Heritage Sites. DPDs and
management plans should contain policies that protect their historic
significance and safeguard and, where appropriate enhance, their settings. In
considering planning applications the Mayor will, and the boroughs must, take
account of and give appropriate weight to the provisions of World Heritage
Site management plans.’ The preceding text in bold indicates the Mayor’s
proposed amendments to this policy as part of Further Alterations to the
London Plan, current at the time of drafting the management plan, and subject
to Examination In Public panel recommendation to the Mayor.
2.5.23 The Townscape View from City Hall to the Tower of London and the
River Prospect downstream from London Bridge are designated as
strategically important views (policy 4B.15 and table 4B.2). The Tower is
identified as a Strategically Important Landmark in these views. Policy 4B.16
states that
‘The Mayor will, in collaboration with strategic partners, prepare and
review management plans for the views designated under policy 4B.15.
These plans should seek to:
• reflect the benefits of the views, helping to promote an
appreciation of London at the strategic level and to identify
landmark buildings and to recognise that it is not
appropriate to protect every aspect of an existing view
• seek to enhance the view and viewing place in terms of
access and the ability to understand the view
• prevent undue damage to the view either by blocking, or
unacceptably imposing on, a landmark or by creating an
intrusive element in the view’s foreground or middle ground
55
Management plans for different types of view will also be based on the
following principles:
• River prospects. The management of these prospects
should ensure that the juxtaposition between elements,
including the river frontages and major landmarks, can be
appreciated within their wider London context.
• Townscape and linear views. These views should be
managed so that the ability to see specific buildings, or
groups of buildings, in conjunction with the surrounding
environment, including distant buildings within views,
should be enhanced.
• Panoramas. Within these views, proposed developments, as
seen from above or obliquely in the front and middle
ground, should fit within the prevailing pattern of buildings
and spaces and should not detract from the panorama as a
whole. The management of landmarks should afford them
an appropriate setting and prevent a canyon effect from
new buildings crowding in too close to the landmark.’
2.5.24 Policies 4B.8 and 4B.9 of the London Plan deal with the location,
design and impact of tall buildings in London. Policy 4B.9 specifies 11
requirements of large scale buildings (including tall buildings), which includes
that tall buildings should:
• ‘meet the requirements of the View Protection Framework
set out in Policy 4B.15 of this plan
• be suited to their wider context in terms of proportion and
composition and in terms of their relationship to other
buildings, streets, public and private open spaces, the
waterways or other townscape elements’
2.5.26 For the View of the Tower from City Hall (View 25) the management
plan emphasises that the viewing point just east of City Hall and virtually
opposite Traitor’s Gate provides the greatest understanding of the ensemble
of buildings, and that the clear view of the sky in the backdrop of the White
Tower from this viewpoint is an important attribute of this view. The view of
the White Tower is subject to geometric protection of the landmark viewing
corridor and background assessment area. A Direction requiring planning
authorities to consult the Mayor, English Heritage, the Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), the neighbouring London
boroughs and Historic Royal Palaces about planning applications affecting the
viewing corridor or background assessment area was issued by the
Government Office for London on behalf of the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government on 16 May 2007 and will come into effect
on 13 July 2007.
2.5.27 For the river prospect view from London Bridge (view 11B), the
management plan in the SPG emphasises that while the Tower of London can
be seen, it is not as prominent in this view as Tower Bridge. However, the
management plan does emphasise the importance of the setting of the Tower
of London in the context of this view, and that development in the
background of the Tower of London must not hamper the ability to see and
appreciate the strategically important landmark. This view is subject to
qualitative visual assessment as set out in chapter 3 of the SPG.
2.5.30 The Local Development Framework for each of these authorities will
consist of a number of documents, including Core Strategy, Development
Control Policies and Area Action Plans. It is accompanied by a statement of
Community Involvement. Local authorities may also produce Supplementary
Planning Documents which address specific areas or issues in greater detail.
The equivalent under the Unitary Development Plan system, now being
phased out, is Supplementary Planning Guidance.
2.5.34 Policies to preserve the setting of the Monument and views from it
(including to the Tower of London) are provided by policies ENV25 and
ENV26.
2.5.35 Chapter 12 of the UDP sets out policies for the protection and
enhancement of the River Thames. Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance
‘Riverside Appraisal of the Thames Policy Area in the City of London,’ adopted
in 2002, provides further amplification of these policies.
that ‘permission will not be granted for developments that would not preserve
or enhance…
• the setting of a World Heritage Site
• important views of or from a World Heritage Site.’
2.5.37 The Borough has a policy with regard to high buildings (3.20). This
makes no reference to the WHS or the need to respect the historic
environment, though it stresses the need for tall buildings to relate well to
their surroundings and contribute positively to the London skyline as a whole.
Work has begun on a Local Development Framework for Southwark, which
will incrementally replace the UDP over the period to 2008.
2.5.40 Policy CON 5 of the strategy sets out specific guidance for the
management of development affecting strategic views:
‘5.1. Development is required:
a) to preserve or enhance the community’s ability to
recognise and appreciate landmarks;
b) to maintain, and where possible enhance, public access to
identified viewpoints;
c) to prevent adverse impacts on Strategic Views; and
d) to prevent adverse impacts on important local views, by
ensuring:
i. important local views are not obstructed or detracted
from, including ensuring the street level setting of
local landmarks is protected; and
ii. impacts that detract from the background setting of
local landmarks, including the marring of views
against the skyline, are avoided.
2.5.41 Policy CP48 of the Core Strategy supports in principle clusters of tall
buildings in the Aldgate area, the northern part of the Isle of Dogs and the
consolidation of the existing tall building cluster at Canary Wharf. The criteria
that tall buildings must satisfy in order to be acceptable are listed in policy
DEV27, and include:
This is expanded upon in the City Fringe Area Action Plan, policies CFR1 and
CFR12:
‘CFR1(2):
c) tall buildings will create a central focus for commercial
activity at Aldgate.
d) the preservation or enhancement of regionally and locally
important views, including to the Tower of London from
City Hall, the backdrop of Tower Bridge and St Paul’s
Cathedral, Christchurch Spitalfields and Old Truman’s
Brewery Chimney; and
e) the preservation or enhancement of the historic
environment SPD of the Borough, including the Tower of
London as a World Heritage Site, Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas’
‘CFR12:
1. High-quality, tall buildings will be focused around the existing
63
2.5.42 Historic Royal Palaces has made representations to the effect that
CFR1(2c) and CFR1(2d) potentially conflict, as the proposed ‘cluster’ of tall
buildings lies at least in part in the background of the protected vista of the
Tower of London from City Hall, designated under London Plan policy. To
resolve this potential conflict, amendment of policy CFR12(3) to include
reference to the need to respect the designated view of the Tower of London
from City Hall has been proposed, with consequential reference in the Aldgate
Masterplan SPD published in consultation draft in January 2007.
2.5.44 The joint English Heritage/ CABE Guidance on Tall Buildings (2003)
makes clear that tall buildings are not exempt from the requirement to have
regard to their historic context. In January 2007, a revised and updated
version of the Guidance was published in consultation draft form. In the
quotations which follow, the draft text is given in bold where it differs from
64
It is anticipated that the revised guidance will be published on 19th June 2007.
Ownership interests
2.6.1 The Tower of London is owned by the Crown but is the responsibility of
the Government through the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
The extent of this ownership encircles the moat, Tower Hill and the Victorian
Gardens; a greater area than the boundaries of the WHS.
Bridge and the building of the A100 necessitated the demolition of property
and crossing of established ownership boundaries. Consequently, much of the
land which is currently under highway, or was purchased to enable highway
works, is in public ownership. However, a number of different authorities,
departments and agencies have ownership interests in adjacent parcels of
land and meet together to agree strategies for its management.
2.6.5 In the buildings which surround the Tower, the owners comprise a
combination of public institutions (including the Corporation of London,
Guildhall University and the Corporation of Trinity House), financial
institutions, developers and property investors, the Crown Estate
Commissioners, and a variety of charitable trusts (including All Hallows Church
Charitable Trust, Tower Hill Trust and the Wakefield (Tower Hill Trinity
Square) Trust.
2.6.6 The Port of London Authority owns and manages the River Thames to
the high-water mark and owns the structure of Tower Pier. The Crown Marine
Estates own Tower Wharf to the centre of the river between Tower Bridge
and Tower Pier, and a stretch up river by the Custom House.
its origins. The Royal Armouries is responsible for the presentation and
interpretation of the interior of the White Tower and currently shares the
delivery of a joint education service with Historic Royal Palaces.
2.6.9 Furthermore, the Regiment of the Royal Fusiliers has its regimental
home and museum in the ‘Fusiliers’ building within the Inner Ward.
Responsibility for the upkeep of this building remains with central
government.
2.6.10 Overall, though, the responsibility for the WHS rests with a single
organisation, Historic Royal Palaces, working in partnership with a variety of
central, regional and local government, private sector communities and
charitable stakeholders to best sustain the OUV, significance and public
enjoyment of the WHS.
2.6.11 Historic Royal Palaces fulfils this responsibility for all the palaces in its
care through a series of nested strategies, of which this Plan is one. The
strategies are driven by Historic Royal Palaces’ Cause; to help everyone
explore the story of how monarchs and people have shaped society, in some
of the greatest palaces ever built. Three-year rolling strategic plans
developed to:
• give the palaces the care they deserve;
• help visitors explore their story;
• have greater impact in the world;
• develop an organisation that lives the cause;
• generate the money to make it all possible
are informed by a wide assemblage of studies and documents, including the
Plan. The first year of the three-year strategic plan is developed into a
detailed Annual Operating Plan, where actions from this Plan will sit.
2.6.12 This Plan will also guide Historic Royal Palaces’ partnerships for the
Tower and its actions in response to changes in the setting.
Resident Governor is responsible for the day-to-day running of the Tower and
for the security of the Crown Jewels. The Conservation & Learning Director is
responsible for the care of the fabric, the interpretation, presentation and
education service, and is the ‘owner’ of this Plan.
2.6.14 Historic Royal Palaces retains a wide range of skills to help it fulfil its
role. Conservation specialists, curators, educationalists, maintenance teams,
fire, health and safety and security advisors, visitor service teams and support
functions are all deployed at the Tower. Special to the Tower is the
community of Yeoman Warders who keep the traditions and form an integral
part of any visit.
69
3.1 Introduction
3.1.2 It is the case now for all WHS that a Statement of Outstanding Universal
Value (including authenticity and integrity) is agreed by the Committee at the
time of inscription. This was not always the case in the past and the World
Heritage Committee has asked for short Statements of Significance to be
developed for all European WHS (including the Tower) which do not have
them.
3.1.4 Plans should primarily set out structures to sustain OUV. However,
those responsible for WHS also need to manage other national and local
values. As such, these may be included in the Plan but need to be carefully
differentiated from other attributes that contribute to OUV and managed in a
way that respects OUV. These further attributes may now be seen to
contribute to OUV, but they cannot be acknowledged without a re-submission
to the World Heritage Committee. At the time of inscription, the State Party
suggested criterion (vi) and this was not accepted by the Committee. It is not
70
Landmark siting, for both protection and control of the City of London
3.3.1 Over the centuries, the Tower’s position has played a crucial role in
many different guises. The Norman William the Conqueror exploited the
qualities of the area at the south east corner of the Roman city walls next to
the River Thames and built his great keep, the White Tower, in a location
71
which would emphasise the strength of the fortress to incoming ships as they
approached the City of London round the bend of the River Thames. As the
gateway to the capital, the Tower has been in effect the Gateway to the
Kingdom. It has been a crucial demarcation point between the power of the
developing City of London, and the power of the monarchy. It has had the
dual role of providing protection for the City through its defensive structure
and the provision of a garrison, and of also controlling the citizens by the
same means. The setting of the Tower at this geographical point has,
alongside its usefulness from a military and political point of view, great
importance as a landmark. The Tower literally ‘towered’ over its surroundings
until the 19th century.
3.3.2 Nineteenth and 20th-century tall building construction in the City has
eroded the impression of great height once held by the Tower. Nevertheless,
its situation and the consequent visual appearance of the Tower of London on
the edge of the River Thames is a key part of its significance. The Tower was
sited on the gently-rising north bank of the Thames, in the south-east angle of
the Roman city wall. This is the crucial relationship to the wider topography,
still very clearly expressed in the modern setting of the Tower, particularly
along Tower Wharf and from Queen’s Walk on the south bank, and by the
surviving sections of the city wall running northwards from the moat.
3.3.3 The Tower is the oldest feature on the skyline of East London, and
complements that of Westminster Abbey in the West. The visual surprise
afforded by seeing a huge medieval complex of buildings surviving right in the
centre of a modern capital city environment encapsulates the palimpsest
nature of the City of London itself – a city built upon, and incorporating layers
72
3.3.4 The role of the fortress and the White Tower as a landmark gateway to
the kingdom and city is less clear because of the development of the north
bank east of the Tower; but symbolically and visually, Tower Bridge still fulfils
that role.
Model example of a Medieval fortress palace which evolved from the 11th to
16th centuries
3.3.8 The Tower has played a significant role in the history of castle design.
The White Tower is one of the key prototype buildings in the development of
the Norman palace-keep. The additions of Henry III and Edward I made the
Tower into one of the most innovative and influential castle sites in Europe in
the 13th and early 14th centuries, and much of their work survives.
3.3.9 From his minority onwards, Henry III’s reign (1216–72) had seen the
repair of many earlier buildings, and the construction of the north, east and
most of the south walls of what is now the inner curtain. These walls were
heavily defended by a series of mural towers, and were surrounded by a moat.
From 1275 onwards Edward (1272-1307) filled this in, thus creating an outer
bailey, and encircled it with a lower curtain wall, reinforced externally by a
larger moat. Edward added a formidable series of bastions, gatehouses,
causeways, drawbridges and portcullis gates. Thus the Tower of London
became an outstanding example of a concentric castle. Together with Edward
I’s and the Lord de Clare’s concentric Welsh castles it represented the apogee
of this type of sophisticated castle design. Developed at the same time as the
Welsh castles, in the late 13th-century, the Tower belonged to a series of
74
3.3.10 Henry III and Edward I were also highly innovative in their
development of the palace within the fortress. Henry repaired and expanded
the buildings within the inmost ward. He was a prolific castle builder, and the
comparatively complete Wakefield Tower is now a nationally rare survival of
his palace building. It is also a tantalizing example of the once extensive
palatial building scheme begun by Henry. His Great Hall now only survives
above ground in manuscript illumination depictions and on 16th-century plans.
Edward I’s St Thomas’ Tower was originally on the edge of the river, and is
also a remarkable building. A chamber with wide high windows, garderobes
and tiny oratories, this fine residential space was built over the impressive
watergate of Edward’s outer curtain wall. It echoed in principle the elaborate
residential gatehouses of some of his Welsh concentric castles. Palace
buildings were added to the royal complex right up until the 16th-century,
although few now stand above ground. The survival of palace buildings at the
Tower allows a rare glimpse into the life of a medieval monarch within their
fortress walls.
This was consolidated by the installation of many different sites and buildings
for the production of coinage within the Tower throughout the centuries. The
Royal Mint was eventually transferred to the north east of the Tower, beyond
its boundaries, in 1810, and finally to Wales in 1978. The royal menagerie
served as the nucleus for the London Zoo and collections moved from the
Tower to Regents Park in 1831. .The Tower has significance therefore as the
historical starting point for several State Institutions.
3.3.14 The Tower not only played a pivotal role in the historical events of this
period, but helped shape the story of the Reformation in England, as both
Catholic and Protestant prisoners (those that survived) recorded their
experiences and helped define the Tower as a place of torture and execution.
The Tower retains an importance for both Protestant and Catholic
communities because of this.
3.3.15 The Tower is also now seen as an iconic building as presenting the last
successful military invasion of England.
Criterion (ii):
Exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time
or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or
technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design
Criterion (iv):
Be an outstanding example of a type of building or architectural or
technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant
stage(s) in human history
The White Tower is the example par excellence of the royal Norman
castle in the late 11th century. The ensemble of the Tower of London is a
77
3.5.1 The Tower of London has outstanding universal value for the following
cultural qualities:
3.5.1.1 Landmark siting, for both protection and control of the City of London
As the gateway to the capital, the Tower was in effect the gateway to the new
Norman kingdom. Sited strategically at a bend in the River Thames, it has
been a crucial demarcation point between the power of the developing City of
London, and the power of the monarchy. It had the dual role of providing
protection for the City through its defensive structure and the provision of a
garrison, and of also controlling the citizens by the same means. The Tower
literally ‘towered’ over its surroundings until the 19th century.
3.5.1.4 Model example of a Medieval fortress palace which evolved from the
11th to 16th centuries
The additions of Henry III and Edward I, and particularly the highly innovative
development of the palace within the fortress, made the Tower into one of the
78
most innovative and influential castle sites in Europe in the 13th and early 14th
centuries, and much of their work survives. Palace buildings were added to the
royal complex right up until the 16th century, although few now stand above
ground. The survival of palace buildings at the Tower allows a rare glimpse
into the life of a medieval monarch within their fortress walls. The Tower of
London is a rare survival of a continuously developing ensemble of royal
buildings, evolving from the 11th to the 16th centuries, and as such has great
significance nationally and internationally.
3.6.1 In addition to the outstanding universal value, the site has national and
local significances which are summarised below.
3.6.3 Salvin’s and his successor, John Taylor’s, approach was strongly
dictated by a 19th-century idea of what a medieval castle should look like.
Taylor prompted one of the earliest recorded debates about the conservation
of historic buildings by demolishing the Record Office next to the Wakefield
Tower. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) bitterly
opposed Taylor’s ‘recreation’ of a mythical medieval structure, preferring the
integrity of genuine architectural survivals. The mythology of the Tower as an
imposing, ‘Gothic’ fortress proved very strong, and had a profound effect on
the fabric of the buildings.
3.6.5 A few choice, smaller scale ceremonies are still carried out at the
Tower. The forms of the ceremonies date from the 19th century, but their
origins are often much older. These include the purportedly 700 year old
Ceremony of the Keys, and the relatively modern Ceremony of the Lilies and
Roses to commemorate the death of Henry VI. The Tower is one of the oldest
gun salute stations in the country, the earliest recorded salutes being for the
Coronation of Anne Boleyn in 1533. Gun salutes are still fired from the Tower
on many important occasions, such as the Queen’s birthdays and the State
Opening of Parliament. The continuity of these ceremonies at the Tower add
to its importance as a touchstone, over the centuries, for ritual and national
celebration.
81
The tradition of the Tower as a visitor attraction by prior appointment has its
roots in the 16th century. The 19th century saw the introduction of a ticket
office at the Tower. Visitor attractions included the Armouries, the Menagerie,
the Jewel House and, until the Interregnum, the institution of the Great
Wardrobe, of which the Jewel House was an offshoot. The Armouries have
great significance as they form the earliest museum display in the country,
with historic armour being displayed from the late 16th century onwards. The
Royal Menagerie was originally for the entertainment of the monarch, but by
Elizabeth I’s reign had become a public attraction. The Menagerie formed the
basis of London Zoo, and eventually left the Tower in 1831-2. State regalia and
precious items were displayed to visitors from the early 16th century onwards,
and the Coronation regalia joined them at the Tower after the Restoration. The
Crown Jewels were displayed in many different buildings around the Tower,
before finally being installed in the current Jewel House in the Waterloo
Barracks. Their resonant presence adds to the status of the Tower as national
icon.
82
However, the Tower remained the prison of first choice for political prisoners
and those accused of crimes against the state, particularly during periods of
civil or national unrest. Parliamentarians, Jacobites and early 19th-century
radicals were incarcerated here, in part at least because of the Tower’s
reputation and image as the ultimate stronghold. Even in the 20th century,
German prisoners spent time at the Tower, and some were executed as spies.
Along with the imposing fortress architecture of the Tower, its use as a prison
and occasional place of torture and execution helped to instil a sense of the
punitive power of the Monarchy or the State in their subjects. Indeed, the
popular image of the Tower as a bloody place of terror is long-established,
although the more detailed ‘romanticised’ image of dripping dungeons is
largely an invention of Victorian fiction. Medieval monarchs certainly
encouraged the idea that the Tower was a place of strength to be feared, and
this added to a sense of the monarchy being unyielding and despotic. For
example, the Benedictine monk Matthew Paris tells us that the citizens of
London rejoiced when Henry III’s imposing West Gate collapsed, for they
identified the fortified structure with their possible incarceration and
disappearance. The Barons of the realm refused to meet King Henry at the
Tower, for fear of being imprisoned within its walls.
84
Memorial
3.6.10 Whilst tales of torture, execution and imprisonment at the Tower have
been exaggerated to dramatic effect over the centuries, the fact remains that
numerous people have suffered within its walls. Men and women of religious
conviction were incarcerated in some cases for large periods of their lives.
Some were tortured at the Tower, and a handful were executed on Tower
Green. A much greater proportion were executed on Tower Hill. Prisoners of
conscience such as Sir Thomas More, and victims of conspiracy and the
changing tides of historical fortune such as Anne Boleyn and Lady Jane Grey
deserve remembrance. The inscription-covered rooms in the Beauchamp and
Salt towers, the Tower Green scaffold site, and the burial place in front of the
altar in St Peter ad Vincula all contribute towards a sense of the Tower serving
as a memorial for the persecuted, the imprisoned and the executed.
the protection of the Crown Jewels and ceremonial duties. In addition, the
Tower houses the Chapels Royal with their tradition of worship and music.
3.6.12 This community conserves the intangible history of the Tower. The
Constable of the Tower is an office dating back to 1066 in an almost unbroken
line. Appointed by the Sovereign, his role is mainly ceremonial although he is
now also a Trustee of Historic Royal Palaces. Key members of the Tower
management, including the Governor and Deputy Governor are also ‘Tower
Officers’, filling ancient appointments as well as Historic Royal Palaces full time
posts, and are residents of the Tower.
3.7.1 In addition to the cultural heritage values discussed above, the Tower is
of instrumental benefit to the local economy and community.
3.7.2 Over the centuries the Tower’s ‘brand’ has become synonymous with
the history of the City and Tower Hamlets: in name, for example, Tower
Hamlets, Tower Bridge, Tower Hill, Great Tower Street, Tower Pier; as a place
of private and public executions (Tower of London and Tower Hill
respectively). Businesses in the area that benefit from the Tower’s visitors
include shops, restaurants and the transport network – some of the closest
establishments are a direct result of the improvements delivered by the Tower
Environs Scheme completed in July 2004. Other benefits include the
pedestrianisation of Tower Hill, and a new Welcome Centre to help promote
the Tower to some of the 2.5 million tourists in the area that are not already
visiting.
3.7.3 The Tower has a part to play in regeneration of the wider community.
Its successful management will provide significant economic, social and
environmental benefits. The Tower has a Community Outreach team who
work with a wide variety of groups from the local community, encouraging
links between the Tower and people’s lives for mutual benefit.
86
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 The Tower benefits from unique characteristics that afford opportunities
for its future development. Conversely, these characteristics also raise
complex issues that affect the conservation and management of the site. In
developing the Plan and setting management objectives for the management
of the Tower every effort has been made to utilise opportunities in a way that
is appropriate to the Tower’s significance and to work towards mitigation of
challenges and issues where possible.
4.2 Opportunities
4.3.1 The very characteristics that create opportunities also raise issues that
need to be recognised and addressed. A number of key management issues
have been identified.
89
4.3.4 At the time of inscription of the WHS in 1988, it was noted by the
World Heritage Committee: “The Committee has expressed its regrets
regarding the building of the Tower Hotel 3, which would have best been
avoided, and took note of the assurances of the United Kingdom authorities as
to protection henceforth to be granted to the environment of the Tower of
London.” 4
View from the Inner Ward.
© Historic Royal Palaces
3
This is now known as the Tower Guoman Hotel.
4
World Heritage Committee, 12th session, December 1988.
90
4.3.6 The objectives identified in this Plan for managing the setting of the
Tower seek to agree and implement a common and consistent approach to
sustaining the OUV of the Tower in its setting and to act in partnership with
statutory authorities and others as appropriate to preserve and enhance its
setting as appropriate.
5
World Heritage Committee, 13th session, July 2006.
91
4.3.12 Visitors from all over the world come to see the Tower and it is
challenging to be able to provide information to them in their own language.
Information at the Tower is available in 8 different languages (French, Italian,
Spanish, Russian, German, Japanese, Mandarin and Korean) and there are
plans to provide further languages if visitor demographics change. Exterior
signage is currently being installed and will provide interpretation in the eight
visitor languages as well as in two local community languages: Somali and
Bengali.
Access
4.3.15 The road to the north of the Tower and the bridge approach route to
the east are very busy. The A100 separates the Tower from the Tube Station
forcing visitors to use the subway which, although improved, is a poor
approach route for visitors. There is considerable noise and pollution deriving
from the road and the first view of the Tower is tempered by a less than ideal
route.
4.3.16 Access to the Tower from Tower Hill tube station is via a steep set of
stairs and a subway. This is challenging for those who are not able to easily
walk. An alternative at grade approach is available via Trinity Square gardens
and over the A100 via a pedestrian crossing and down to the visitor welcome
centre but this is not signed and therefore relatively little used. Provision of
safe access routes for the less able-bodied is a key objective of the London
Plan, local authorities and Transport for London.
The relationship between Historic Royal Palaces and its on-site partners
4.3.18 The historic and continued presence of on-site partners, such as the
Royal Armouries, contributes to the significance of the WHS. Close co-
operation between them is essential for the effective operation of the Tower
as a whole. This is recognised through an objective to manage the Tower in
consultation and co-operation with on-site partners.
The relationship between Historic Royal Palaces and the wider community
4.3.19 There is currently limited opportunity for parties with an interest in the
immediate vicinity of the Tower to engage with each other and Historic Royal
Palaces. The Tower of London World Heritage Site Consultative Committee, a
group including on-site partners, national organisations, regional and local
authorities and heritage specialists, will provide a forum for consulting on
93
5.0 The vision for the Tower of London World Heritage Site
5.1 The vision for the Tower of London World Heritage Site
5.1.1 The vision for the Tower of London World Heritage Site is to sustain its
outstanding universal value and to effectively manage the Tower in order to
protect, conserve and present it to the public and to transmit it to future
generations.
5.1.2 This vision will be achieved by: continually sustaining the state of
conservation of the Tower; working in co-operation with others to protect the
setting of the Tower; working with others to achieve greater appreciation of
the Tower and its amenities by workers, residents and visitors alike; helping
visitors to find enjoyment and meaning in the Tower’s stories, and to have an
emotionally engaging experience there; promoting greater understanding of
the issues surrounding the care, management and value of the Tower and
other heritage assets to the wider world; valuing the community that lives at
the Tower and the staff who care for and present it to the public; making all
this possible by enabling the Tower to generate income in support of its own
conservation and presentation.
5.1.3 This vision guides the management of the Tower, and is the foundation
upon which Historic Royal Palaces’ work at the Tower is built. Achieving the
vision requires the support and co-operation of on-site and off-site partners.
Historic Royal Palaces’ cause and strategic aims are aligned to the vision, and
will help to support it by:
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 This section of the Plan sets out the management objectives for the
Tower, which reflect the opportunities, challenges and issues discussed above.
Each objective is supported by actions, the timescale for implementation of
which has been categorised as ongoing, short, medium or long term. The
action plan is set out in part C of the Plan.
6.2.1 Research into the history of the Tower is crucial since it is only through
comprehensive understanding of the site that we can effectively sustain its
significance for the benefit of future generations.
6.2.4 Despite the continuous series of changes to the buildings and defences
of the Tower it retains considerable archaeological potential, and in almost
any part significant features may remain, even if heavily truncated or
diminished. Evidence for the Roman city and its defences survive, as does the
potential for remains of the developing waterfront. There must be some
evidence for the transition from Saxon town to Norman castle, and much has
already been found for the development of defences. Domestic life of all
periods is reflected in the archaeology, and there is potential for ‘industrial’
remains of ordnance and minting activities. The moat has already proved the
97
6.2.6 Major investigations into the moat and the New Armouries site have
recently been published, and a monograph on the history of the White Tower
is nearly complete. New research into such an important site should be shared
with the wider world through publications, lectures, exhibitions, press releases
and on Historic Royal Palaces website. Knowledge gained through
documentary research and archaeological investigation should be added to
the Conservation Plans as a continuous process.
6.3.2 Sustaining the Tower’s OUV therefore involves not only conserving its
fabric and maintaining its traditions, but also preserving (in the sense of not
further harming) and enhancing its setting. The objectives in this section are
concerned with the setting and the interpretation and application of the
planning policy framework outlined earlier in this document.
6.3.7 The division of spatial planning responsibilities within the local and
wider settings of the Tower means that it is vulnerable to inconsistency in
both the definition and application of policy objectives. Parts of the local
setting fall into Conservation Areas which have been designated by Tower
Hamlets and the City of London. Character appraisals and management plans
are being developed for these Conservation Areas.
6
Heritage Protection for the 21st Century, p28, para 53.
100
or:
• under an Article 10(3) Direction (July 2007) which will bring into
force the Secretary of State’s Directions and the Mayor’s
Supplementary Planning Document London View Management
Framework. This Direction requires Historic Royal Palaces (and
others, including English Heritage) to be notified of proposals within
the foreground and background of a designated viewing corridor
from City Hall towards the Tower of London.
6.3.10 Planning applications for proposals that would materially affect the
Tower or its setting should fully and accurately describe the impacts of those
proposals and include access and design statements, Accurate Visual
101
6.3.13 Specific actions are proposed in the next five years to implement
Objective 2:
• Action 2.3 Work with the City of London Corporation and the
London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Southwark as planning
authorities to ensure that conservation area character appraisals
and management plans are produced in accordance with current
English Heritage guidance for those conservation areas that
include parts of the local setting of the Tower.
concerned, which varies greatly, and to the disposition of the mass on the site.
The detailed design and materials of buildings defining the local setting of the
Tower also need particular consideration. Such buildings should normally
provide an appropriate setting for the Tower and other heritage assets, and
backdrop to the open spaces, rather than seeking to be landmark statements
in their own right.
6.3.19 Of the existing buildings, south of the Thames the height of More
London [23] avoids being overly dominant because of the fragmented
footprint of its component blocks. Its layout makes good use of framed views
of the Tower and Tower Bridge, and it includes a high quality public realm
which fully recognises opportunities to enjoy views of the Tower and the
Bridge. North of the Thames and in much closer proximity to the Tower,
Tower Place [2] and International House [15], have a greater impact on the
local setting of the Tower. Their upper levels are particularly prominent in
some views from the Inner Ward. Tower Place is prominent on Tower Hill,
partly because it stands on a podium that includes the visitor coach park for
the Tower.
Public realm
6.3.20 The historical development and use of the open spaces around the
Tower is an important aspect of the site’s value and significance. By the end
of the 20th century, the fortress had become isolated from much of its historic
area of influence by road realignments, inappropriate landscaping and the
piecemeal accumulation of urban clutter. Significant historic townscape
elements such as the linkage between Tower Hill West, Trinity Square and
Great Tower Hill had been lost or changed The Tower Environs Scheme in
1994-2004 tackled these problems on the south (The Wharf) and west (Tower
Hill).
6.3.21 The public realm around the Tower – the horizontal plane of the local
setting - should continue to become more focussed on the needs of
pedestrians, particularly those less able-bodied pedestrians who are unable to
105
use the steep stairs of the underpass. The Tower is bordered on two sides by a
heavily-used main road - the A100 - which crosses Tower Bridge and turns
west across the northern edge of the WHS. Where it crosses Tower Bridge it
forms part of the congestion charge strategic orbital route. The impact of
noise and pollution, and the severance of historic spaces and pedestrian desire
lines, is much greater on the north side than the east. A more pedestrian-
friendly environment, especially in the vicinity of the A100, is necessarily a
long term goal since it would be dependent upon reducing traffic flow
through part of London’s strategic road network. It is nonetheless one to
which all redevelopment and changes in traffic management should
incrementally contribute, in terms both of quantity and quality of pedestrian
space.
6.3.22 More London and Tower Hill both have high-quality public realm
surface treatment, which differentiate parts of the ‘arena’ around the Tower
from the urban background. That principle should be extended to other areas
of the local setting, particularly to the north of the Tower. The continued use
of natural stones and other appropriate materials and distinctive lighting and
street furniture in high quality landscaping can bring coherence to the local
setting of the Tower. Wherever possible, new buildings should present active
frontages to the public realm, especially those frontages facing the Tower
itself. Close co-ordination is also required with statutory undertakers to ensure
an integrated and sensitive approach to essential works and activities in and
around the Tower, avoiding undue disruption. It is essential that statutory
undertakers ensure that repairs are completed and the surface is reinstated to
its previous quality.
6.3.25 Of the buildings defining the edge of Tower Hill, Tower Place [2],
being completed in 2003, is likely to remain in place for some decades; but on
eventual re-development, greater consideration should be given to its effect
on the backdrop to views from the Inner Ward. The late 1950s Three Quays
House [1] was designed with sensitivity for the setting of the Tower, conscious
that it would form the backdrop to views on leaving the Tower through Middle
Gate. Consent was granted in 2005 for a redevelopment which was criticised
by the 2006 UNESCO Mission for being ‘intrusive’ owing to its height in
proximity to the WHS boundary. Historic Royal Palaces has been invited to
participate in discussions with the site owner to bring about an alternative,
more appropriate, form of development than that approved in 2005, which
may be possible in the context of combined redevelopment of Three Quays
and Sugar Quay to the west. The key consideration should be to avoid
dominating the backdrop to Middle Tower, the historic and current entry to
and exit from the Tower of London. The area between the WHS boundary and
the existing building is the site of the Tower Dock, filled and paved over when
the present Three Quays House was built.
L3 Tower Gateway
6.3.28 The Tower Gateway Development Framework and Investment Strategy
(2003) for the incremental redevelopment of this major group of sites was
prepared in full co-operation with Historic Royal Palaces and English Heritage,
as well as the planning authorities (City and Tower Hamlets). The Framework
broadly reflects the current scale of development, maintaining the clear sky
between the White Tower and the roof of the Waterloo Block (see below). It
has the potential (subject to design quality) to deliver a major enhancement of
the backdrop to the Tower, and modest improvements to the public realm,
including the environs of Tower Hill Station. Consent exists (renewed with
amendments 2007) for the redevelopment of the building over Tower Hill
Underground Station. Behind this, beyond two grade II listed buildings (41-42
Trinity Square) lies The Grange City Hotel, 11 Cooper’s Row, whose height in
relation to distance from the Tower and white cladding make it, with No1
America Square beyond, particularly intrusive.
L5 St Katharine’s Dock
6.3.30 The redevelopment of Tower Bridge House has recently been
completed ([15]; see above). Modifications primarily to the dockside frontage
of the World Trade Centre Building [16] are likely to proceed in 2007-8, linked
to the redevelopment of other parts of the estate. Associated public realm
improvements, including better linkage of the Dock estate and its facilities to
the Tower of London, will contribute to Objective 3 of this Plan.
6.3.31 The negative contribution of the Tower Guoman Hotel [17] to the
setting of the Tower was noted by the World Heritage Committee when the
site was inscribed in 1988. Any major reworking of this building should take
account of improving its contribution to the quality of views eastwards along
the Wharf, and between the Inner and Outer Curtain Walls.
109
L7 Potter’s Field
6.3.33 On the west side of the Tower Bridge approach, Potter’s Field Park
(redesigned in 2006) forms part of the public realm from which the WHS can
be appreciated. In winter, clear views are possible of the Tower; however,
during the summer months large areas are currently obscured by the canopies
of the mature London plane trees, planted along the wharf and on the south
lawn. When floodlit, the Tower is an impressive landmark on the banks of the
Thames by night, particularly seen in juxtaposition to Tower Bridge.
6.3.34 On the site behind the park, planning permission was granted in 2006
for eight oval, glass-clad residential towers which, if built, will ‘provide
exemplary and world class architecture on an outstanding and prominent
7
site’ , and so become the main focus of attention in views in this direction
from the Tower. Site preparation began early in 2007.
L8 More London
6.3.35 The south bank of the Thames opposite the Tower is an area of
comprehensive redevelopment, likely to be completed by 2008. City Hall, the
seat of the Greater London Authority, stands within an area of predominantly
office buildings (More London) set in a high quality public realm. The
comparatively large spaces between the buildings are designed to frame and
focus views of parts of the Tower and Tower Bridge. The best single view of
the White Tower in context, against a clear skyline, is from this area, just west
of City Hall. Its strategic value is now recognised in regional and local
planning policy through the LVMF (see below, W1). It forms the highlight of a
sequence of views that illustrate many aspects of the WHS in the context of
the urban landscape and skyline, from London Bridge, along the riverside walk
(Queen’s Walk) to Tower Bridge, and then from Tower Bridge itself.
7
The conclusion of Inspector Reid in the public inquiry into the proposals in 2005 (para 1140,
be minor 8, a factor not only of height and distance but of the high quality of
design of new buildings visible or consented in these distant views.
6.3.42 There are many views into and out of the Tower. The most iconic view
is that from City Hall. This iconic view is designated under London Plan Policy
4B:15 and related SPG, the LVMF, which provides a view management
framework and management plan for this view which “aims to summarise key
characteristics that are unique to a particular designated view and provide
guidance as to how the view is to be managed in the future.” 11. This is further
described in paragraph W1 below.
8
The conclusion of Inspector Holt in the public inquiry into the Heron Tower in 2002 (para
6.3.46 With regard to the first, geometrically defined, protected vista the
LVMF Management Plan highlights;
“the view from just east of City Hall and virtually opposite Traitors’ Gate
provides the greatest understanding of the ensemble of buildings,
where spaces between the trees allow a clear view of the southern and
western faces of the White Tower, down to the roof of the Waterloo
Block. The clear view of the sky in the backdrop of the White Tower
from Assessment Point 25A.1 is an important attribute of this view.
Modern development already in the background is obscured by the
White Tower at this precise position.” 12
12
Management Plan 25 Townscape View: City Hall to Tower of London paragraph 5.
113
protected vista so that the White Tower remains distinct and legible in the
view. It is important that developers respect the ability to recognise and
appreciate the strategic landmark and contribute to its legibility.
6.3.48 In the second aspect of the view, the LVMF Management Plan advises
that qualitative visual assessment of the wider view be used as a technique for
assessment of development proposals. The visual management guidance in
the LVMF accepts that new buildings will be visible but they should contribute
positively both to the recognition and appreciation of the Tower and to the
overall composition of the view avoiding a canyon like effect.
“Development proposals in the background of this designated view
should seek to preserve or enhance the setting of Strategically
Important Landmarks [The Tower of London] or other important
townscape elements that contribute to the special characteristics of the
view. The Mayor will only accept introduction of a new building into the
backdrop to a particular view of a Strategically Important Landmark
when it can be demonstrated that it “preserves or enhances the ability
to recognise and appreciate the landmark buildings” (Policy 4B. 17) ” 13
13
Management Plan 25 Townscape View: City Hall to Tower of London paragraph 15.
114
6.3.51 The Mayor’s policies and those of the London Borough of Tower
Hamlets promote a cluster of tall buildings at Aldgate, but acknowledge that
the form of the cluster must consider the impact on the background to this
view. Those buildings which already have planning permission (and are being
built) will be hidden by the White Tower itself in the protected vista. The
London Borough of Tower Hamlets has stated in the draft Aldgate Masterplan
(2006, p51) that ‘building heights… should decrease away from this central
cluster of buildings’, which is consistent with the objectives of this Plan.
6.3.52 The ‘eastern cluster’ of tall buildings in the City of London stands
apart to the west, rising to an apex currently proposed to be represented by
the consented Bishopsgate Tower. Proposals for tall buildings to the west of
the White Tower, falling within the background of the WHS, will need to
consider their effect on the established eastern ‘cluster’ and the suggested
cluster at Aldgate, and the effect on the ability to recognise, understand and
appreciate the OUV of the Tower. Proposals to the east of the White Tower,
beyond the area covered by the emerging Aldgate Masterplan, will need to
consider their effect on the ability to recognise and appreciate the WHS from
the assessment points outside City Hall.
W2 Serial views from the Thames and the Thames footpath (Queen’s Walk)
6.3.53 Views from the river emphasise the intimate relationship between the
Tower and the Thames, with the Tower seen against a wide, receding
backdrop. The skyline is punctuated by few modern buildings, save for the 1
America Square group. Care is needed to ensure that new buildings visible in
this backdrop do not become unduly dominant. It is also important that views
from the Thames Path do not become obstructed by more large permanently-
moored vessels.
6.4.3 The Tower has always been a dynamic site, subject to changes of use,
hence conservation does not mean that the castle will be preserved
completely unaltered. The task is to ensure that changes do not detract, but
sustain, and where possible enhance significance, sustaining the whole site
into the future.
Buildings
6.4.5 The built fabric of the Tower is robust, but like any historic structure
needs to be constantly monitored and maintained. Building materials such as
14
The Tower within the Moat Conservation Plan. Conservation policy No. 9.
117
stone and lead will continue to decay owing to erosion from weather,
pollution, or inappropriate previous repairs. The Tower is generally able to
bear the footfall of large numbers of visitors although there are vulnerable
points (typically in narrow stairways or where original paint is preserved)
where visitor contact has to be carefully managed. Sustaining the ambience
of the Tower is dependent on managing visitor movement, and ensuring that
the signage, hardware and services required in a tourist attraction are
sensitively designed and installed.
6.4.6 The vast majority of archival material relating to the daily business of
the Tower, and building and repair phases are now housed at the National
Archives in Kew, where it is archived to international standards. Their
collection spans the work of centuries, and includes medieval documents as
well as correspondence, plans and specifications up until the 20th century.
The British Library also holds many important documents relating to historical
events and individuals who administered or were 'kept' at the Tower. The
library of the Royal Institute of British Architects contains original plans and
elevations of much of Anthony Salvin's Tower restoration. The National
Monuments Record at Swindon has limited holdings related to the Tower.
6.4.7 Historic Royal Palaces has its own plan archive containing original and
copied material, archived to national standards situated in the Waterloo
Barracks at the Tower, and administered by a plan archivist. The historical
material relating to the body of Yeomen Warders is maintained by the
Yeoman archivist and is situated also in the Waterloo Barracks. The parish
records of St Peter ad Vincula and St John the Evangelist are maintained by
the Chaplain at the Tower, and a digitised copy is kept in the Tower Curators'
Library. The historic photographic collection is maintained at Historic Royal
Palaces' picture library at Hampton Court Palace. A collection of
archaeological objects is kept in store on Tower Green, and a database is
maintained with other material relating to Historic Royal Palaces' collections.
All of Historic Royal Palaces' archives can be consulted by non-employees by
prior appointment.
6.4.11 Projects planned at the Tower for the coming years include:
• stone conservation and lead roof renewal to three Inner Curtain
Wall towers, the Beauchamp, the Bloody and the Constable, as
well as works to the north, east and west facades of the White
Tower;
• a programme of surface improvements to make the Tower more
easily accessible for all, as well as meeting the requirements of the
Disability Discrimination Act;
• adaptations to support improvements to the education and
interpretation programme;
• major re-presentation of the Jewel House;
• repairs to the Fusiliers building.
119
6.4.14 The condition of the collection and interiors similarly is a matter for
constant monitoring, as all materials will decay over time owing to the impact
of risks posed by contaminates, fire, incorrect RH, incorrect temperature,
pests, people (wear and tear), physical forces, radiation (light both visible and
ultra violet) and water. Through a dedicated team that combines scientific,
preventive and treatment skills and expertise we can ensure that the
collections and interiors are safeguarded. A full emergency plan is in place to
mitigate the impact of any emergencies.
6.4.16 The condition of the collection and interiors is monitored in the State
of the Interior Estate Survey (SOIE), a comprehensive condition survey that is
updated regularly and allows Historic Royal Palaces to prioritise conservation
and treatment programmes.
6.4.19 This work is delivered in a variety of diverse ways; for example, talking
to the public in areas on visitor routes, presentations to local community
groups and research papers written for academic audiences. By raising
awareness and making our conservation work visible, Historic Royal Palaces is
able to reach a wider and more diverse audience. Investing time in developing
and providing a resource of continuous training and learning allows us to
ensure that our skills and expertise are secured for the future.
Landscape
6.4.20 The ‘Approaching the Tower’ Conservation Plan (1999), which deals
specifically with the setting of the Tower of London, outlines Historic Royal
Palaces’ policy regarding the landscaping of the Tower.
6.4.21 Conservation Policy 8 outlines the objective: ‘To sustain and enhance
ecologically important zones in and around the Tower of London while
balancing the needs of those interests with those of the built and buried
heritage.’
6.4.23 Land Use Consultants produced a Tower of London Tree Strategy for
Historic Royal Palaces in 1996, which reflected a 1990 report written on the
‘Landscape Maintenance at the Tower of London.’ Both this strategy and
report emphasised the importance of trees at the Tower as part of the existing
fabric of the monument and visitor experience of the site. The strategy put
forward an action plan for fresh planting at the Tower in recognition of this. In
2005 the new work being carried out on the setting of the WHS recognised
the need for a review of the strategy. As part of this work a historical report
(Historic Royal Palaces) and an appraisal of the archaeological potential and
impact of the site (Keevill Heritage Consultancy) have been carried out, and
landscaping is under review.
6.4.24 The hard landscaping of the Tower has also come under scrutiny as
part of the work Historic Royal Palaces is carrying out to comply with the
Disability Discrimination Act. The Tower of London Access Audit of 2002
identified key areas that were problematic for the disabled visitor, and that
required modification. To inform proposals for changes to the Tower’s
surfaces, an ‘Analysis of Historic Surfaces’ by Graham Keevill Associates has
been commissioned. This assesses the antiquity – no surfaces pre-date the late
19th century - and relative value of the surfaces of the monument.
6.4.26 The Tower is, like the rest of London and other WHS, at risk; most
obviously from rising river levels but also from other indicators such as
atmospheric pollution and the increasing number of storms. Even the trend
to a longer growing season results in increased maintenance costs to address
the demand for year round mowing and lawn care. The Tower has not yet
suffered unduly but the experience of other agencies indicates the risk.
123
6.4.27 Objective 7 - Assess the risks to the Tower posed by climate change
and review the options for mitigation of those effects.
6.4.28 Historic Royal Places is actively seeking ways to reduce its carbon
footprint. Recommendations from the Carbon Trust have been implemented,
such as improving insulation standards and provision of energy efficient
lighting, and a recycling programme is in place. It is committed to achieving
sustainable development in all contracts and services and has established a
Sustainable Development Group to prepare an overall strategy for the
organisation.
6.4.29 Historic Royal Palaces has begun a programme to assess the risks of
climate change and review the options for mitigation of its effects. It is
assisting the Centre for Sustainable Heritage, University College London, in
developing a study to assess risk, and examine adaptive capacity. This work
will be informed by the expertise and experience provided by a range of
agencies including English Heritage, ICOMOS and the National Trust.
Interpretation
6.5.1 Like all of the palaces in Historic Royal Palaces’ care, the Tower of
London has a distinctive ‘personality’. A significant exercise is underway to
develop the Tower’s personality, using this to define the core visitor
proposition and ensure that the Tower of London experience meets and
exceeds visitor expectations.
6.5.6 Objective 9 – Present the Tower using interpretation that will enable
audiences to have more engaging learning experiences, raise their
understanding of the significance of the historic buildings and collections and
increase their participation in the Tower’s stories.
6.5.8 Visitors do not all learn in the same way and Historic Royal Palaces
aims to cater for all learning styles; auditory, reading/writing, visual or
kinaesthetic. It is also important to ensure that interpretation is accessible to
the many visitors whose first language is not English. This includes providing
translated information and endeavouring to find alternative means of
communication which do not require translation; for example, images, film,
atmospheric sound, smells and object handling.
Interpretation programme
6.5.9 A diverse and creative interpretation programme is provided to allow
visitors to engage with the Tower’s stories in a variety of ways. Further details
of the programme are provided in Appendix F. The interpretation programme
intersects with the education programme where object handling, experiential
activity and use of the historic spaces take prime position. It is also closely
linked to the community and outreach programme, involving audience groups
in the planning and delivery of the interpretation programme.
126
6.5.11 Recent projects such as the Bloody and Beauchamp Towers and the
Medieval Palace used room re-creation, film, sound, smells, interactive
exhibits, real objects and interpretation signage to create engaging new visitor
experiences. Live interpreters work in the redesigned spaces in the Medieval
Palace to re-create events from Henry III’s and Edward I’s stays at the Tower,
allowing visitors to step back in time to the 13th century and actively engage
with the monarchs and people who made history here. In 2007 we will launch
a family-focused ‘Prisoners’ experience with interactive displays, linked with
live interpretation on the same theme. This project will also involve opening
the Lower Bowyer Tower, a new wheelchair-accessible public space at the
Tower. Wherever possible, all interpretation is designed to have no impact on
the fabric of the Tower. Interpretation is implemented in such a way as to be
fully reversible and is based on detailed historical and archaeological
evidence.
Visitors can hear the sound of
Latin prayer re-created in the
chapel in the Medieval Palace.
© Historic Royal Palaces
6.5.12 Future new displays on the theme of ‘Fortress and Fighting’ will be
developed, the White Tower will re-presented in conjunction with the Royal
Armouries and other areas such as the Jewel House will be re-presented on a
cyclical basis.
127
Learning
6.5.13 Historic Royal Palaces is committed to inspiring, educating and
informing the public through our interpretation programme. The Museums,
Libraries and Archives Council’s Generic Learning Outcomes framework is
used to identify key visitor learning outcomes for all interpretation projects.
Education
6.5.15 The historical and cultural importance of the Tower requires the
delivery of a world-leading education service that directly responds to the
needs of all education visitors, from school children to informal, lifelong
learners. Historic Royal Palaces aspires to make the Tower and the other
palaces in its care a leader in the heritage education field and to create a
centre of excellence, offering unique and inspiring learning experiences of the
highest quality. In 2006 the Tower was awarded the Sandford Award for
Heritage Education, an accolade that it has held since 1978, thereby testifying
to the contribution of the site in the field of heritage education.
6.5.16 The uniqueness of the Tower and the buildings that still survive lies in
the compelling stories that have been played out within its walls and the
pivotal role that the site has played in the history of our nation. Together,
these elements provide Historic Royal Palaces with the unique ability to
inspire education visitors in the places where history happened.
128
6.5.17 Objective 11 – Ensure that the rich history and stories of the Tower are
used to inspire and engage all education visitors, from school children to
informal, lifelong learners.
Community involvement
6.5.22 Historic Royal Palaces’ cause is to help everyone explore our stories.
Just as with interpretation there needs to be an awareness that learning styles
differ, and there needs to be a range of methods used to reach out to as
broad a range of the community as possible.
6.5.26 Over the last year Historic Royal Palaces has developed innovative
partnerships with Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) in Tower Hamlets and
Southwark. Groups from PRUs have worked at the Tower to explore history
where it happened, and to relate that to their own experience. Using
photography, poetry and film young people tell the stories of the Tower their
way – for instance looking at ideas of displacement and belonging with
participants new to the country, or dealing with the stories of imprisonment
with young offenders. The projects build participants’ self-esteem,
engagement and help to develop a range of transferable skills. The work with
PRUs has been highlighted both by the English National Youth Arts Network,
and by the PRU staff network, as well as drawing interest from a range of
partners in and around our community, for example:
Through the work with PRUs Historic Royal Palaces is also now more able to
reach out to other groups of challenging young people more effectively. This
131
A community resource
6.5.27 As more young people from more diverse backgrounds are
welcomed, new ways are constantly being found in which the Tower can be
utilised for local people.
6.5.28 For students training to work in Travel and Tourism, the Tower is an
ideal site at which to gain experience in what is a crucial industry for the
future of east London. For many other groups the Tower is a place to
celebrate achievements. For example, students graduating from the Tower
Hamlets SEN Independent Travel Training scheme use their new skills to guide
their families to the Tower for a special event.
6.5.32 Those traditional events and ceremonies that have now lost their
practical purpose must have sufficient resources devoted to them to ensure
their continuance. These include the Ceremony of the Keys, Constable’s Dues,
Constable’s Installation, Beating the Bounds and the Ceremony of the Lilies
and the Roses.
6.5.33 In order to provide the expertise for parades and genuine uniforms
rather than costumes, the Tower Officers and Yeoman Warders should
continue to be recruited from those with a military background.
Visitor experience
6.6.1 Each year the Tower receives approximately two million visitors.
Visitor numbers to Tower Hill, the Wharf and surrounding area and the Tower
are estimated to be in the region of five to six million a year.
6.6.7 Objective 15 - Ensure that the quality of life of the Tower’s resident
community is given due consideration and that a satisfactory balance is struck
with the needs of the World Heritage Site.
6.6.9 Objective 16 – Ensure the security and safety of the site, residents and
visitors, maintaining plans to deal with major incidents and furthering good
working relationships with the emergency services.
6.6.10 The Deputy Governor of the Tower is responsible for the day-to-day
security of the Tower and reports to the Governor, who has overall
responsibility. The Historic Royal Palaces Security Advisor is available to
provide advice on all security matters including recommendations for security
works and equipment and is able to draw upon the specialist advice through
the Cabinet Office Security Policy Division and Security Service National
Security Advice Centre as necessary. Once a year the Security Advisor
conducts a detailed annual survey of all aspects of security at the Tower and
produces an annual report on Historic Royal Palaces' security which is sent to
the DCMS. Safety at the Tower is maintained in accordance with Historic
Royal Palaces’ Health and Safety Management Policy.
tested several times a year with the fire brigade, police and the army. Risk
assessments are in place for all public routes at the Tower. These routes are
inspected on a daily basis prior to opening. Routine maintenance
programmes are in place to manage potential risks from such as lighting, floor
finishes and electrical equipment. In the event of an incident, first aid is
provided to visitors.
Accessibility
6.6.12 Historic Royal Palaces is committed to ensuring that the Tower and
interpretation of its stories is accessible to everyone, wherever practical and
reasonable, and as required under the Disability Discrimination Act.
6.6.15 Objective 17 - Ensure that interpretation within the Tower and its
environs is accessible by any person or groups of people with disabilities - this
includes both physical access and intellectual access.
6.6.16 Live interpretation is one of the ways in which stories are made
accessible. It generally takes place in physically accessible areas of the Tower,
engages with different senses and interpreters are able to gauge audience
knowledge and ensure interpretation is intellectually accessible.
136
6.6.17 The impact of the A100 on visitors’ initial experience of the Tower has
been previously noted (see section 2.3.4). This could be addressed, in part, by
improvements to pedestrian crossing points.
6.6.18 Objective 18 - Develop better signage for the route from Tower Hill
Underground Station to the at-grade crossing across the A100.
• The Royal Collection, principally in the context of the Crown Jewels, but
also with regard to items in Queen’s House;
• The Royal Armouries, both in terms of the exhibition / storage of their
collection and with regard to meeting the Tower’s educational remit;
• The Ministry of Defence regarding the accommodation and employment
of the military guard and the housing and maintenance of the
headquarters of The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers;
• The resident community: the Tower has been in continuous occupancy
since it was built. The goodwill and tolerance of today’s 140-strong
community is essential to the continued conduct of business at the
Tower and it also plays a vital role in shaping the essential character of
the Tower and conserving its history.
6.7.2 Management of the Tower needs to reflect the activities and objectives
of these partners, and also respect the significance of the WHS.
6.7.4 The Tower has a number of off-site partners and the Tower of London
World Heritage Site Consultative Committee provides a forum in which
proposals, issues and challenges can be reviewed and addressed with the
benefit of their expertise. This body will meet at least once a year and will
monitor implementation of the action plan.
137
6.9.3 Over the next decade there are four primary goals:
• to build visitor income to a consistent dependable base;
• to generate more money through other income streams including retail,
functions and events and development;
• to make the most of the money we spend;
• to build and hold free reserves at £5m and use designated funds to plan
investment in major projects.
6.9.4 The Tower is only one of the five palaces for which Historic Royal
Palaces has responsibility and its needs must therefore be considered in the
context of competing requirements.
138
6.9.5 Over the next three years the aim is to grow visitor income from all
palaces, with targeted advertising and marketing for specific projects. Having
re-launched the Historic Royal Palaces’ website in April 2007, further
development will take place over the next three years, including new
investment in online marketing to maximise impact and increase online ticket
sales. The focus for developing the travel trade market will be key established
markets (USA, Asia and western Europe), emerging foreign markets and
domestic groups.
6.9.6 The focus for retail development will be on product leadership, (for
example the new Tower of London souvenir guide), visitor experience and
operational excellence.
6.9.7 Over the next three years new development work will be guided by a
development strategy that reflects the need to sustain the OUV of the site.
The campaign will include the White Tower and the Jewel House.
7.1 This Plan sets out Historic Royal Palaces’ objectives for managing the
Tower and its setting: researching and understanding the Tower, promoting its
significance, caring for it, communicating its stories, operating it for the
mutual benefit of its visitors and residents and generating the money to make
all this possible. These objectives will help Historic Royal Palaces to fulfil its
cause and to ensure that the management of the Tower and its setting is
appropriate to its status as a WHS.
7.2 Historic Royal Palaces is the lead body responsible for implementing the
Plan, in co-operation with its on-site and off-site partners. The Plan provides
the focus for co-ordinating this work; a significant level of continued
commitment and resources are required to undertake it.
7.4 Each year specialist plans, such as the Management Plan, inform the
content of departmental Annual Operating Plans in a process lasting from
October to March. Actions and activities in Annual Operating Plans have
budgets and resources allocated to them and this is, therefore, the principal
mechanism for the implementation of many of the World Heritage Site
Management Plan objectives and actions.
7.5 The Tower of London World Heritage Site Consultative Committee (the
Committee), a group including on-site partners, local authorities and heritage
specialists, will provide a forum for consulting on issues affecting the Tower
and its environs. In some cases other fora such as the permanent officer level
forum will be set up to progress particular objectives.
141
8.1 The Tower and its setting are dynamic, part of a constantly evolving
World City. As such, the Plan and the mechanisms for monitoring and
reviewing it need to be flexible.
8.2 The Plan will become the policy of Historic Royal Palaces who will then
be responsible for monitoring and reviewing the actions that it contains.
Within Historic Royal Palaces, the Conservation & Learning Director will be
responsible for ensuring their implementation. This will be achieved by:
• formally reviewing the entire Plan every five years in consultation with
the Tower of London World Heritage Site Consultative Committee.
(Responsibility - Conservation & Learning Director);
• working with partners to ensure that they adopt the Plan where
appropriate (Responsibility –Conservation & Learning Director).
144
9.1 The objectives set out in this Plan reflect the dynamic nature of the
Tower as a site of outstanding universal value, and Historic Royal Palaces’ role
in caring for, conserving and presenting it. In this respect, the objectives are
of an ongoing nature. The actions relating to the objectives are specific;
determining what will be done to support their achievement. Objectives and
supporting actions are set out below.
145
146
1.5 Research the history of the fabric and events at the Ongoing
Tower to support its conservation and learning
programme.
1.6 Share the findings of research with the wider world, Ongoing, short term
including increasing access to records and plan rooms.
147
Managing the Objective 2 – Work with all relevant 2.1 Establish a permanent officer-level forum to achieve Immediate
setting of the organisations, particularly planning authorities, complementary planning policies and their
Tower to develop and implement a common and implementation with respect to the Tower in its setting.
consistent approach to sustaining the
A common and outstanding universal value of the Tower in its 2.2 Work with the Greater London Authority, the Ongoing
consistent setting. London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Southwark and
approach the City of London Corporation as planning authorities,
and English Heritage, to ensure that the emerging Local
Development Frameworks provide complementary
detailed planning policy framework able to manage the
outstanding universal value of the Tower in its setting.
2.3 Work with the City of London Corporation and the Short term
London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Southwark as
planning authorities to ensure that conservation area
character appraisals and management plans are
produced in accordance with current English Heritage
guidance for those conservation areas that include
parts of the local setting of the Tower.
2.4 Seek to agree with the London Boroughs of Tower Short term
Hamlets and Southwark and the City of London
Corporation guidance for consistent and early
consultation with Historic Royal Palaces and English
Heritage by developers and by those authorities
concerning proposals that would materially affect the
setting of the Tower.
Managing the Objective 3 –Act in partnership with statutory Action 3.1 Work with all concerned, and in Short term
148
setting of the authorities to safeguard and enhance the local particular the planning authorities and English Heritage,
Tower setting of the Tower, by: to produce a co-ordinated approach to management of
• sustaining, and where possible revealing and the public realm in the ‘local setting’ of the Tower of
Managing the reinforcing, the significance of historic assets, London as defined in this Plan.
local setting of and in particular to outstanding universal
the Tower value of the World Heritage Site; 3.2 Work with all concerned, and in particular the Short term
• achieving high standards of design and planning authorities and English Heritage, to
execution, appropriate to context, in the develop a design guide for the public realm.
Managing the Objective 4 – Act in partnership with statutory 4.1 The English Heritage methodology will be the Short term
setting of the authorities to ensure that the wider setting of subject of consultation before being finalised.
Tower the Tower is adequately managed to ensure
that the outstanding universal value of the
Influencing the Tower is sustained.
wider setting of
the Tower
Giving the Tower Objective 5 - Understand the significance of the 5.1 Conserve the Tower’s buildings and collections in Ongoing
the care it Tower’s buildings and collections and conserve accordance with the guidelines of the international
deserves them to the highest standards, in accordance conservation community.
with the guidelines of the international
Buildings and conservation community.
collections
149
Giving the Tower Objective 6 – Implement, and update as 6.1 Develop a strategy for landscaping/ tree planting at Immediate
the care it appropriate, a strategy of tree-planting to the Tower in the light of new historical research,
deserves recognise historic patterns, preserve archaeological risk-assessment and ecological surveys,
archaeology and enhance views. undertaken as part of a new, updated strategy.
Landscape
Giving the Tower Objective7 - Assess the risks to the Tower 7.1 Assist the Centre for Sustainable Heritage, Short term
the care it posed by climate change and review the University College London, to develop a study to assess
deserves options for mitigation of those effects. the risks to the Tower posed by climate change.
Communicating Objective 9 – Present the Tower using 9.1 Continue, and further develop, a rolling programme Ongoing
the stories of the interpretation that will enable audiences to of evaluation to measure visitor learning outcomes.
Tower have more engaging learning experiences, raise
their understanding of the significance of the 9.2 Encourage and participate in research to improve Ongoing
Interpretation historic buildings and collections and increase effectiveness of interpretation in delivering learning.
their participation in the Tower’s stories
Communicating Objective 10 – Use the Tower’s interpretation 10.1 Work with Outreach and Community Involvement Ongoing
150
the stories of the programme to motivate current audiences and and Marketing teams to identify key audiences for
Tower encourage new visitors, and work in alignment interpretation projects and target accordingly.
with evolving audience development strategies
Interpretation to help everyone explore the Tower’s stories.
programme
Communicating Objective 11 – Ensure that the rich history and 11.1 Work with Royal Armouries to ensure an effective Immediate
the stories of the stories of the Tower are used to inspire and handover of the education service to Historic Royal
Tower engage all education visitors, from school Palaces by September 2007.
children to informal, lifelong learners.
Education
Communicating Objective 12- Mobilise the Tower as a centre of 12.1 Extend the reach of programmes through Ongoing
the stories of the excellence for youth inclusion and as an asset broadening the range of groups we work with and
Tower for east London, working throughout the local deepening relationships with our established
community to help a new generation explore community partners.
Community the WHS on their doorstep.
involvement
Communicating Objective 13 – Ensure that the knowledge and 13.1 Ensure active participation in State events. Ongoing
the stories of the practice of traditional ceremonies and events is
Tower maintained and demonstrated to as wide an 14.2 Ensure continuance of those traditional events and Ongoing
audience as practical. ceremonies that have now lost their practical purpose.
Maintaining and
passing on 14.3 Continue to recruit Officers and Yeoman Warders Ongoing
traditions and with a military background.
ceremonies
Valuing visitors Objective 14– Ensure that visitors have an 14.1 Use the findings of the visitor experience strategy Ongoing
and the resident excellent experience at the Tower and, as to identify actions to improve the visitor
community customers, feel valued by Historic Royal experience.
151
Accessibility
Managing the Objective 19– Manage the Tower in consultation 19.1 Establish and maintain strong and effective bi- Ongoing
Tower with our and co-operation with Historic Royal Palaces’ lateral relations with on-site partners.
partners on-site partners.
Promoting the Objective 20 - Promote the Tower’s 20.1 Include reference to the Tower’s WHS status and Ongoing
Tower’s significance in Historic Royal Palaces’ branding in new Historic Royal Palaces’ publications, on
significance communication and dialogue with the wider its website and in other promotional material.
world.
Generating the Objective 21 – Undertake revenue and fund 22.1 Undertake a review of functions and events across Immediate
money to sustain raising activity that appropriately balances the Historic Royal Palaces (including the Tower).
the OUV of the significance of the Tower with the requirement
Tower to generate the money to care for, conserve 21.2 Launch a new fundraising campaign that will Short term
and present it to the public. include the White Tower and Jewel House.
I
Bibliography
General
TES. (1997) The Tower Environs Scheme Master Plan: Detailed Submission
(Volumes 1-3)).
World Heritage
ICOMOS (UK). (1995) The English World Heritage Sites Monitoring Reports.
London: ICOMOS (UK).
DCMS. (2007) Heritage Protection for the 21stt Century. London: HMSO
DOE. (1990) Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
DOE. (1990) Planning Policy Guidance Note 16, Archaeology .and Planning
London: HMSO.
DOE. (1994) Planning Policy Guidance Note 15, Planning and the Historic
Environment. London: HMSO.
DOE. (2001) Planning Policy Guidance Note 13, Transport. London: HMSO.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets. (2006) City Fringe Area Action Plan:
Submission document London: London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
Bayley, J. (1821) The History and Antiquities of the Tower of London. London.
Brown, R. A. and Curnow, P.E. (1984) The Tower of London. London: HMSO.
Charlton, J. (ed) (1978) The Tower of London. Its Buildings and Institutions.
IV
London: HMSO.
Fry, P.S. (1990) The Tower of London: Cauldron of Britain’s Past. London:
Quiller. .
E.A. Impey, E.A. and Parnell, G. (2000) The Tower of London: The Official
Illustrated History. London: Merrell.
Lipman, V.D. (1978) ‘The Jurisdiction of the Tower Authorities Outside the
Walls’ in J. Charlton (ed) The Tower of London: its Buildings and Institutions,
pp 144-152. London: HMSO.
Morley, H. (ed) (1994) A Survey of London written in the year 1598 by John
Stow. Stroud: Sutton Publishing.
Parnell, G. The Tower of London. Past and Present. Stroud: Sutton Publishing.
Archaeological/Architectural History
Brown, R.A. (1988) ‘The White Tower of London’, in The Cambridge Guide to
V
Brown, R.A., Colvin, H.M. and Taylor, A. J. (1963) The History of the King’s
Works, Volumes 1 and 2. The Middle Ages. London: HMSO.
Clapham, A.W. (1912) ‘The Tower of London and its Development’ in Some
Famous Buildings and their Story. London: Technical Journals Ltd.
Clark, G.T. (1867) ‘Some Particulars Concerning the Military Architecture of the
Tower of London’, in Archaeological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Old
London. London.
Colvin, H.M., Ransome, D.R. and Summerson, J. (1975) The History of the
King’s Works, Volume 3. 1485- 1660, part 1. London: HMSO.
Curnow, P.E. (1977) ‘The Wakefield Tower, Tower of London’ in Apted, M.R.,
Gilyard-Beer, R. and Saunders, A.D. (eds) Ancient Monuments and their
Interpretation. Chichester: Phillimore & Co.
Curnow, P.E. (1978) ‘The Bloody Tower’ in J. Charlton (ed) The Tower of
London. Its Buildings and Institutions. London: HMSO.
Impey, E.A. (1998) ‘The Western Entrance to the Tower of London, 1240-1241’,
Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 48, pp 59-
75.
Keevill, G. and Kelly, S. (2006) ‘The Tower of London New Armouries Project’,
Oxford Archaeology Occasional Paper 12.
Parnell, G. (1982) ‘The Excavations of the Roman City Wall at the Tower of
London and Tower Hill 1954- 1976’, Transactions of the London and Middlesex
Archaeological Society 33, pp 85-133.
Parnell, G. (1985) ‘The Roman and Medieval Defences and Later Development
of the Inmost Ward, Tower of London: Excavations 1955-77’, Transactions of
the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 36, pp 37-43.
Whipp,C. (2006) ‘The Medieval Postern gate by the Tower of London’, MoLAS
monograph 29.
Crown Jewels
Blair, C. (ed) (1998) The Crown Jewels: the History of the Coronation Regalia in
the Jewel House of the Tower of London. London: The Stationery Office
Books.
Holmes, M. and Sitwell, H.D. (1972) The English Regalia. Their History, Custody
and Display. London: HMSO.
Palgrave,F. (1836) The Antient Kalendars and Inventories of the Treasury of His
Majesty’s Exchequer, Volume 3.
Rose, T. (1992) The Coronation Ceremony of the Kings and Queens of England
and the Crown Jewels. Bernan Press: Lanham, MD.
Prisoners
Bell, D.C. (1877) Notices of the Historic Persons Buried in the Chapel of St
Peter ad Vincula in the Tower of London. London.
Institutions
Barter, S. (1978) ‘The Mint’ in J. Charlton (ed), the Tower of London. Its
Buildings and Institutions. London: HMSO.
Borg, A.C.N. (1978) ‘The Royal Menagerie’ in J. Charlton (ed), the Tower of
London. Its Buildings and Institutions. London: HMSO.
Hallam, E.M. (1979) ‘The Tower of London as a Record Office’, Archives vol. 14
no. 61, pp 3-10.
Parnell, G. (1997) The Early History of the Tower Armouries, Royal Armouries
Yearbook 1996, pp. 45-52.
IX
Parnell, G. (1999) The Royal Menagerie at the Tower of London. Leeds: Royal
Armouries Museum.
The English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Tourist Boards. (1999)
Sightseeing in the United Kingdom. .
Historic Royal Palaces. (2002) Guidebook: The Official Crown Jewels. London:
Historic Royal Palaces.
VisitBritain Press Release: English Visitor Attractions Provide Value for Money!,
http://www.visitbritain.com/corporate/presscentre/presscentreengland/press
releaseseng/aprjul2006/visitorattractions.aspx, accessed 25.01.07.
Tower Environs Scheme (1999). Tower Hill Area Sustainable Transport and
Environmental Improvement Package.
Interpretation
Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. What are the Generic Learning
Outcomes? http://www.inspiringlearningforall.gov.uk, accessed 19.12.06.
Education
Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. What is Inspiring Learning for All?,
http://www.inspiringlearningforall.gov.uk, accessed 05.01.07.
XI
i
Appendices
ii
Outdoor exhibition
The exhibition was located on railings at Tower Hill, adjacent to the taxi-rank
for a six week period from 16 October to 27 November 2000.
A statement explaining that a translation of the boards was available from
Chris Blandford Associates was included in Bengali, Somali, Vietnamese and
Chinese. These languages were recommended by the London Borough of
Tower Hamlets as being representative of the ethnic mix within their borough.
On-deposit locations
The consultation draft was placed ‘on-deposit’ at a number of publicly-
accessible locations from 16 October to 27 November 2000. The locations
were chosen on the advice of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Posters
advertising the consultation process were also displayed at these locations.
Website
The consultation draft was placed on the Historic Royal Palaces’ website from
16 October 2000.
Consultation
Copies of the consultation draft were sent out to all members of the
Management Plan Consultative Committee. A further 40 copies of the draft
Plan were sent out to interested parties on request and a summary document,
with reference to the availability of the full document on the Historic Royal
Palaces website, was sent to a more general list of consultees.
Press release
A press release summarising the aims and objectives of the Plan and
promoting awareness of the consultation draft consultation process, was
released through Historic Royal Palaces.
Advertisement
An advertisement to promote the consultation, in particular the outdoor
exhibition, the on-deposit draft Plans and the website, was placed in the 23
October edition of the ‘East End Life’.
Responses
A number of responses were received, largely comprising constructive
comments related to enhancing the clarity of the Plan. Where appropriate,
these suggestions for changes to the text were incorporated into the final
document. Written responses (copies of which are held by Historic Royal
Palaces) were received from:
• Tower Hill Improvement Trust (now Tower Hill Trust);
• Stanhope PLC;
• Confederation of Passenger Transport;
• Transport 2000;
iv
Re-consultation
A smaller re-consultation took place between 17 January and 14 February
2003 to clarify the viewing point from Tower Bridge. This revealed concern
that the draft Plan did not adequately address the definition of the Tower of
London’s setting, within a quickly changing city environment. Adoption of the
draft Plan was, therefore, deferred whilst a strategy for defining and
protecting the setting of the Tower of London was produced.
Towards a Strategy for Protecting the Setting of the Tower of London World
Heritage Site
A study was carried out by Land Use Consultants aiming to define in three
dimensions the visual setting of the Tower as perceived from pedestrian level,
and to provide a tool for assessing the impact of proposals for development
within that setting. The result was a sky space model and a document entitled
Towards a Strategy for Protecting the Setting of the Tower of London World
Heritage Site which considered what policies might be appropriate to achieve
objective 5 of the then draft of the Management Plan ‘to ensure that the wider
setting of the Tower is adequately protected from development which is not
compatible with the unique status, dignity and character of the World
Heritage Site.’
Historic Royal Palaces was established in 1988 as a Royal Charter Body with
charitable status and is contracted by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media
and Sport to manage the palaces on her behalf. It is responsible for the care,
conservation and presentation to the public of the unoccupied royal palaces:
HM Tower of London, Hampton Court Palaces, Kensington Palace State
Apartments, the Banqueting House at Whitehall and Kew Palaces with Queen
Charlotte’s Cottage.
The Chief Executive is accountable to the Board of Trustees. The palaces are
owned by the Queen on behalf of the nation. Historic Royal Palaces is a Public
Corporation and receives no public revenue funding – all costs are met by self-
generated income.
The objectives of Historic Royal Palaces, as set out in its Royal Charter, are, for
the benefit of the nation:
• to administer, conserve, renovate, repair, maintain and improve the
palaces to a high standard consistent with their status as buildings of
royal, historic and architectural importance;
• to educate and inform understanding of the public about the palaces
and the skills required for their conservation by providing public access,
by exhibition, by the preparation of records, catalogues and inventories,
by research and by publication and by such other means as are
appropriate.
vi
Our Cause
To help everyone explore the story of how monarchs and people have shaped
society, in some of the greatest palaces ever built.
Guardianship
We exist for tomorrow, not just yesterday. Our job is to give these palaces a
future as long and valuable as their past. We know how precious they and
their contents are, and we aim to conserve them to the standard they deserve:
the best.
Discovery
We explain the bigger picture, and then encourage people to make their own
discoveries: in particular, to find links with their own lives and the world today.
Showmanship
We do everything with panache. Palaces have always been places of
spectacle, beauty, majesty and pageantry, and we are proud to continue that
tradition.
Independence
We have a unique task, and our own point of view. We challenge ourselves to
find new and different ways to do our work. We are an independent charity,
not funded by the government or the Crown, and we are keen to welcome
everyone who can support us in our cause.
vii
The Tower has in the past been a fortress, a palaces and a prison, and has housed the
Royal Mint, the Public Records and (for a short time) the Royal Observatory. It was
for centuries the arsenal for small arms, the predecessor of the existing Royal
Armouries, and, as one of the strongest fortresses in the land, has from early times
guarded the Crown Jewels.
The Tower today is the key to British history for many thousands of visitors who come
every year from all over the world to see the buildings, the Royal Armouries and the
Crown Jewels and the museum collections, to relive the past and enjoy the pageantry
of the present. Bust at the same time it is still a fortress, a royal palace, and the home
of a community of some 150 hardworking people. As such it epitomises all that is best
in World Heritage. UNESCO criteria: 5a) II, IV, Vi.
viii
ix
x
Until the end of 2004, World Heritage sites were selected on the basis of six
cultural and four natural criteria. With the adoption of the revised Operational
Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention in 2005,
only one set of ten criteria exists.
x. contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ
conservation of biological diversity, including those containing
threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view
of science or conservation.
xii
General
This appendix lists the main heritage assets at the Tower. An indication of the
date of the main building phases of the asset is given with details of its
statutory protection.
Scheduled Monuments
The total area of the Tower of London to the outer edge of the moat is a
Scheduled Monument (Greater London SAM No. 10). These boundaries also
represent the current limit of the WHS as inscribed by UNESCO. The Tower
SM is bounded the Tower Hill West SM (Greater London SAM No. 158) to the
west. The boundaries of this monument runs from the West Gate across the
head of the (infilled) Tower Dock before turning north to follow the
administrative and political boundary between the Corporation of London and
the London Borough of Tower Hamlets as far as the north edge of Tower Hill
Terrace. The Scheduled area then returns eastward to rejoin the Tower SM at
the north-west corner of the moat garden railings. Both monuments lie within
the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The Roman city wall on Tower Hill
(north) is also scheduled (Greater London SAM No. 14).
A plan and list of Scheduled Monuments and Listed Structures within the
World Heritage Site is provided below.
xiii
xiv
No. phases
INMOST WARD
Tower
Shop
Wall
Gate
INNER WARD
Toilet Block
Listed Building
Peter
Block
Museum
Listed Building
Listed Building
and
Beauchamp
Towers
Beauchamp
and Devereux
Towers
26 Curtain Wall 1238-75, 19th century Part of Grade I Inner Curtain Wall
Devereux and
Flint Towers
th
27 Flint Tower 19 -century rebuild Part of Grade I Inner Curtain Wall
Listed Building
28 Curtain Wall 1238-75, 19th century Part of Grade I Inner Curtain Wall
and Bowyer
Towers
29 Bowyer Tower 1238-75, and C19th Part of Grade I Inner Curtain Wall
th
30 Curtain Wall 1238-75, 19 century Part of Grade I Inner Curtain Wall
Bowyer and
Brick Towers
Listed Building
and Martin
Towers
Martin and
Constable
Towers
th
35 Constable 1238-75, 19 century Part of Grade I Inner Curtain Wall
36 Curtain Wall 1275-85 and C19th Part of Grade I Inner Curtain Wall
xvii
Broad Arrow
Towers
37 Broad Arrow 1238-75, and C19th Part of Grade I Inner Curtain Wall
38 Curtain Wall 1275-85, 19th century Part of Grade I Inner Curtain Wall
Broad Arrow
and Salt
Towers
39 Salt Tower c1238-75, and C19th Part of Grade I Inner Curtain Wall
and Lanthorn
Towers
Lanthorn and
Wakefield
Towers
44 Bloody Tower 1220s, 1360-2, 1603, Part of Grade I Inner Curtain Wall
C19th century Listed Building
Bloody and
Bell Towers
Wall Area
Appraisal
OUTER WARD
Listed Building
Listed Building
Listed Building
Area
Appraisal
54 Byward Tower 1275-85, and c 18th Part of Grade I Outer Curtain Wall
55 Postern & c1350, 16th century Part of Grade I Outer Curtain Wall
56 Curtain Wall 1275-85, 16th / 19th Part of Grade I Outer Curtain Wall
Byward Tower
and Legge’s
Mount
58 Curtain Wall 1275-85, 19th century Part of Grade I Outer Curtain Wall
Legge’s
Mount and
Brass Mount
and North
Bastion
59 Brass Mount C1300, 17th and 20th Part of Grade I Outer Curtain Wall
60 Curtain Wall 1275-85, 19th century Part of Grade I Outer Curtain Wall
Brass Mount
and Devlin
Tower
Devlin and
Well Towers
63 Well Tower 1275-85, 19th century Part of Grade I Outer Curtain Wall
Listed Building
64 Curtain Wall c1348-55, 1774, 19th Part of Grade I Outer Curtain Wall
and Cradle
Towers
xx
66 Cradle Tower 1348-55, 19th century Part of Grade I Outer Curtain Wall
Listed Building
Cradle Tower
and St
Thomas’s
Tower
Thomas’s
Byward
Postern
wall Area -
Appraisal
MOAT
Moat
Revetment
xxi
Wall
Revetment
Wall
Wall
Wall
Appraisal -
APPROACHES
Causeway and
bridge
causeway
Cottage